1950-06-19

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is not customary to refer to the passing of persons who were formerly members of this house. However, in a few cases exceptions should be made, and I believe the sudden death of John R. MacNicol, the former member for Davenport, should be one of those cases.
I was shocked to learn of Mr. MacNicol's passing. For the last few months we have been corresponding with respect to a project which was very dear to him, and as a matter of fact I was in the process of acknowledging a letter he had written me only last Friday when I heard of his death. As I am sure all hon. members will agree, for many years Mr. MacNicol was a beloved and revered figure in this house. He was first elected as a Conservative in 1930, and was re-elected continuously until the general election of 1949. I suppose Mr. MacNicol was one of the most travelled members of parliament. When the house was not in session he was usually off to acquaint himself with various parts of our country and learn of the problems of those living in other provinces and territories. As a result of his travels he acquired a vast store of knowledge on matters relating to irrigation and the development of our resources generally, which he put to very good use on his return to the house.
It can be said of Mr. MacNicol, I think, that at least among members of parliament he counted none but friends. Those who knew him were struck by his kind and gentle manner, by his good nature, and by his sense of service not only to his own constituents of Davenport but to all Canadians everywhere.
On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the house I should like to express to the leader of the party to which Mr. MacNicol belonged our sincere sympathy.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fitting tribute to our late friend John R. MacNicol that the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
Laurent) should have varied the ordinary custom to indicate the regret felt in every part of the house, as in every part of Canada, at the passing of a truly great Canadian.
In many ways John R. MacNicol was a unique figure. He was extremely loyal to the party in which he believed and of which he was a member; he had served that party in its highest offices, but in his untiring efforts to advance the best interests of this country he continued to make recommendations for the development of our resources, the conservation of our soil, and so on, only in the hope that the dominion government, the provincial governments or the municipal governments concerned, without regard to political point of view, might carry out the plans in which he believed.
As the Prime Minister has said, of those members who knew him over the years each one was a friend. Mr. MacNicol was untiring in his efforts to encourage recognition of the possibilities of increasing the productive capacity of our country, by reclamation, by conservation, by irrigation in western Canada, by power development in the maritime provinces, and generally by the development of our great resources.
Mr. MacNicol was always proud of Toronto. He never failed to express his pride in what Toronto was to him, and what he believed it would be in the years ahead. But he was equally anxious at all times to serve every part of this country. As has already been stated, between sessions he visited every part of Canada in an effort to encourage the furthering of those plans in which he believed. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him, and by Canadians everywhere who were encouraged by his bright vision of the future. While certainly not a young man at the time of his passing, that vision and the prospects ahead had never been dimmed; his eyes were always on that bright horizon.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in expressing regret at the passing of Mr. MacNicol. The seating arrangements in parliament threw us together, and for two parliaments we sat side by side. I got to know Mr. MacNicol well. Each session we looked forward to the report that he would make of his travels during the recess. Speaking as one who represents a prairie
3780	HOUSE OF
The late John R. MacNicol constituency, I know that I express the appreciation of the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan, perhaps Saskatchewan particularly, for the great interest he took in the welfare of the communities adjacent to the great rivers, and his untiring efforts on behalf of the irrigation plans that have been discussed over the years.
Mr. MacNicol lived a full life. I sometimes think there is much to be thankful for when a man lives a full life, as he did, and passes as he passed. Spared a long period of illness, in the full vigour of his intellect, and deeply interested, as the Prime Minister has indicated, in the schemes which he supported, he has passed to his reward. It recalls to all of us that ancient phrasing of the Book of Common Prayer, "In the midst of life we are in death".
Mr. Solon, E. Low (Peace River):	Mr. Speaker, we should like to associate ourselves with the tributes that have been paid to the late Mr. MacNicol, and to express our sincere regret at his sudden passing. We learned to love and admire the fine qualities of this great man. We in the west particularly were grateful to him for the way in which he interpreted the east to the west and the west to the east; and he contributed greatly to national and international understanding and good will.
We believe that Mr. MacNicol was instrumental in inducing much development in the west. He was one of the few men I knew who really understood how important it was that the west be developed. He recognized how important its development would be as a market for eastern manufacturers, and he spent a great deal of time trying to establish various types of works in, the west that would help us to get the type of development we needed. We loved him for what he was- a sincere, honourable, fine gentleman.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, the tributes paid to the memory of Mr. John Ritchie MacNicol were fitting and well deserved. I knew him well and liked him. He was an excellent member of parliament, spending his time during the session either in the house or in his office getting information for his summer travels. He was more than a traveller; he was an explorer and prospector. He never missed an opportunity to improve his knowledge about Canada, his beloved country; and he never missed an occasion to help anyone. As one of his colleagues, I remember many instances of his political courage; he was most useful in his own way. I cannot forget it. He was scholarly and well informed. He was endowed with a high degree of public spirit, and


his career was useful not only to his constituents, not only to the city of Toronto which he loved, not only to the province of Ontario, but to the whole country. Whenever he had a practical suggestion to make, he looked so happy. He looked happier only when he had support for his suggestion.
Sir, I must say that although some of our political beliefs were different, we were very good friends, just as I was with the late Tommy Church, who was a close friend of Mr. MacNicol. Tommy used to call Mr. MacNicol "John R.," and so did I. John R. used to call Mr. Church "Tommy", as we all did. They were fine men; they represent the glorious past of the Conservative party.
Mr. MacNicol has occupied high positions in the party. If I recall aright, he was president of the dominion Conservative association, and presided over one of the conventions that selected a leader. He saw to it that there was a fine book published with the names and pictures of all the delegates. He gave me one.
May I be permitted to recall one incident in particular when Mr. MacNicol helped me a great deal. It was during the difficult sessions of the civil service committee. I had some difficulty with my Conservative colleagues who wanted some information to be considered confidential. I spoke of it to someone who spoke to somebody else, and the somebody else spoke to Mr. MacNicol, who saw the leader of his party. Things were arranged so that we could get the information required, but it took a lot of good will and good disposition. Mr. MacNicol was always there whenever he was needed to give a hand to his colleagues.
I must recall to hon. members that his family and Mr. Mackenzie King's family were very close friends, and tributes were paid to Mr. MacNicol in the house by the former prime minister. I cannot do otherwise than tell my leader that I am delighted that he has paid such a fine tribute to the memory of a great member of parliament and a great Canadian. I congratulate the leader of the opposition, the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low) for having also spoken so well about a beloved colleague who has just passed to the great beyond.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Harris) and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Hellyer) I wish to pay tribute to the former member for Davenport, whom I knew in this house and outside of it as a most kindly gentleman. He was a man of wide interests, extending far beyond his own constituency, and of great attainments,

which he displayed in the house on many occasions. To me he exemplified true Cana-dianism. He was greatly respected throughout the country, and was particularly loved in the city of Toronto. I am sure the house will agree with me that he will be missed in the Canadian scene. His passing is a matter of personal loss to the people of the city of Toronto. He will be particularly missed there.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, as a backbencher may I concur in everything that has been said by those who have preceded me in paying tribute to a great Canadian. The late John R. MacNicol was always a booster for the development of our natural resources, both in the east and in the west; but he was particularly interested in irrigation projects in Alberta.
In the passing of Mr. MacNicol we in southeastern Alberta have lost a great eastern booster for the development of our irrigation projects. He will be sadly missed by every one of us in that area; but his memory will be cherished and will give us added strength to carry on where he has left off, until our dreams are realized and we shall have water flowing over more of the dry areas of the western plains.
May I extend to his relatives my deepest sympathy.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 312, to incorporate the Association of Kinsmen Clubs.-Mr. Benidickson.

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

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	What are the names of the persons submitting tenders for the construction of a school on the Seven Islands Indian reserve, county of Saguenay?
2.	What is the amount of each of the above-mentioned tenders?
3.	To whom and at what price was the contract awarded?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1 and 2.
Contractor

Address-Amount of Tender.
Lucien Tremblay, Riviere Portneuf, Que., $312,000.
North Shore Construction Company Limited, 307 Castle building, Montreal, Que., $359,450.
Frs. Jobin Inc. 88 Chemin St. Louis, Quebec, P.Q., $361,400.
Questions
A. Deslauriers et Fils Ltee., 68 rue Lale-mant, Quebec, P.Q., $424,300.
Jos. Eugene Tremblay, 127 rue de la Ronde, Quebec, P.Q., $433,000.
A sixth tender was received after the closing date for receiving tenders, from the Sept lies Development and Construction Limited, in the amount of $348,176.
3. Lucien Tremblay, Riviere Portneuf, Que., $312,000.	.


CO-ORDINATOR OF PUBLIC PROJECTS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	On what date was Lieutenant Colonel the Hon. Jules Andre Brillant appointed co-ordinator of public projects, and on what date did he cease to hold this position?
2.	On what date was H, W. Lea appointed coordinator of public projects, and on what date did he cease to hold this position?
3.	What persons were appointed as acting coordinators of public projects, and what were the dates of the tenure of each such appointment?
4.	How much was paid to (a) Lieutenant Colonel the Hon. Jules Andre Brillant; (b) H. W. Lea; (c) each of the acting co-ordinators (i) in salary; (ii) expenses?
5.	Are there any reports on the work of (a) Lieutenant Colonel the Hon. Jules Andre Brillant; (b) H. W. Lea; (c) each of the acting co-ordinators on their work in connection with the co-ordinating of public projects?
6.	If so, are such reports available, and how may they be obtained?
7.	Are there any reports on the work of the regional councils appointed for the purpose of recommending public projects? If so, are such reports available, and how may they be obtained*?
8.	Are there any reports on the work of the permanent executive staff of the above councils? If so. are such reports available, and how may they be obtained?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Appointed February 1, 1945, terminated August 1, 1949; Hon. J. A. Brillant, acting as co-ordinator of public projects for Quebec province only, from the date that H. W. Lea was appointed co-ordinator of public projects.
2.	Appointed July 2, 1945, terminated May 31, 1948.
3.	(a) G. D. Mallory, appointed June 1,
1948,	terminated June 15, 1949.
(b) H. G. Cochrane, appointed June 16,
1949,	terminated January 18, 1950.
4.	(a) (i) Nil; (ii) nil; (b) (i) $21,170.40; (ii) $2,611.96; (c) G. D. Mallory (i) nil; (ii) $39.80; (d) H. G. Cochrane (i) $4,425.41; (ii) $649.75.
5 and 6. No formal report on the work of the co-ordinators of public projects is available other than that contained in the annual report of the department of reconstruction and supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, under the heading "Public Projects Branch". Monthly departmental reports of

Questions
the work of that branch back to the year 1945, are contained in the files of the former public projects branch of the department of reconstruction and supply, but they are not available for publication.
7.	Yes, but they are not available for publication.
8.	No.


BOUCHARD PLANT, STE. THERESE, QUE.
Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	What was the scale of hourly wages for each class of work at the Bouchard plant, Ste. Therese. prior to April 1, 1950?
2.	Has there been any wage reduction since April 1, 1950?
3.	If so, what is the new wage scale, and what classes of work are affected?
4.	By whom were the wage changes authorized, and what reasons?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.
Classification
Carpenter	
Painters	
M.T. drivers	
Motor mechanic	
Electrician	
Lineman	
Heavy equipment operator
Labourer	
R.R. conductor	
R.R. engineer	
R.R. trainman	
Trackman	
R.R. fireman	
Plumbers and steamfitters Machinist	
Prior to April 1, 1950 Ste. Therese Rates
____$1.00 p.h.
	95 "
	75 "
	90 "
_____ 1.05 "
		.90	"
	 1.05 "
	75	"
	 1.22 "
	 1.22 "
	 1.20 "
	87	"
	 1.02 "
	 1.05 "
	 1.00 "
2, 3 and 4. The Ste. Therese rates, which are prevailing rates, are at present under review by the Department of Labour, but have not yet been changed.


GANDER, NFLD., AIRPORT RADIO STAFF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Are the radio staff employees at Gander airport to be given full credit for past services as recognized by the government of Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what steps are being taken in this respect?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Action completed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have any arrangements been made by the Canadian National Railways to purchase new ships for its Newfoundland services?
2.	If so, how many, and when?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The Canadian National Railways have under consideration the purchase of one additional ship for service on the east coast of Newfoundland. It is expected that the specifications will be completed and order placed in the near future. In addition, there is now under consideration a proposed combination cargo-passenger-automobile ferry for service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, which when received should release one and possibly two vessels presently operating in the North Sydney-Port aux Basques service _ to augment the Newfoundland coastal service.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Does the Minister of Justice send regular or any reports regarding communist activities that come to the knowledge of the security branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the attorneys general of the respective provinces, to which such reports would be applicable?


Mr. Garson:: The Minister of Justice does
not send regular reports concerning communist activities that come to the knowledge of the security branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the attorneys general of the provinces; for officers commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the six provinces policed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under contract are responsible for keeping the respective attorneys general informed regarding communist activities, and in other provinces liaison is maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the respective provincial police forces in matters relating to subversive activities.


PYREX OVENWARE
Mr. Matthews:: 1.	What is the rate of tariff protection, if any, enjoyed by pyrex ovenware imported into Canada?
2.	Who are the manufacturers of pyrex ovenware and who are the distributors for Canada?


Mr. McCann:: 1. "Pyrex" glass ovenware
is subject to entry under tariff item 326g. Articles covered by this item are free of customs duty under the British preferential tariff, and are subject to duty as the mostfavoured-nation tariff rate of 15 per cent ad valorem when they are produced in and imported from the United States or other most-favoured-nation countries.
2.	(a) Corning Glass Works, Corning, N.Y.;
Corning Glass Works of Canada Limited, Leaside, Ont. (b) No information available.


GRAIN PURCHASES BY BREWING AND DISTILLING COMPANIES
Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	Has the government a record of the amount of grain purchased by brewing and distilling companies in Canada in each of the years 1947, 1948, 1949?
2.	If so, what types of grain were purchased and what amount of each, in bushels?


Mr, McCann:: No record is kept of the
amount of grain purchased by brewing and distilling companies, but the following shows the grain used. These figures are only available in pounds.
Fiscal years		
Mar.	31,	1947Mar.	31,	1948Mar.	31,	1949Mar.	31,	1947Mar.	31,	1948Mar.	31,	1949Mar.	31,	1947Mar.	31,	1948Mar.	31,	1949Mar.	31,	1947Mar.	31,	1948Mar.	31,	1949Mar.	31,	1947Mar.	31,	1948Mar.	31,	1949Mar.	31,	1947Mar.	31,	1948Mar.	31,	1949Mar.	31,	1947Mar.	31,	1948Mar.	31,	1949
Distilleries
Barley Malt
	 38,118,151
	 49,997,856
	 31,699,705
Corn
	 91,807,930
	 248,056,463
	 176,368,186
Rye
	 24,545,992
	 25,694,278
	 30,189,564
Wheat
	 108,082,769
	 16,094,056
	 1,971,636
Other Grains
	 25,090,790
	 18,522,147
	  13,490,999
Breweries
Malt
	 318,185,638
	 349,087,636
	 360,167,623
Other commodities (generally corn or rice)
	*	 4,221,725
	 5,300,170
	 4,606,844


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total amount paid to (a) old age pensioners, and (b) blind pensioners, during the three-year period from April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1949, in each province, and also in the Northwest Territories?
2.	What was the total amount spent by each province in administering old age and blind pensions for the period April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1950?
3.	What was the total amount spent by the federal government in administering old age and blind pensions for the period April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1950?
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on Wednesday, June 21, 1950, and every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the present session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as are now provided for other days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	-
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Secretary of State to look into the possibility of getting certain returns down for me which are one, two and three months old. The first motion is to be found in Hansard of March 29, at page 1349, relating to unemployment; the second one will be found in Hansard of April 19, at page 1689, relating to Steep Rock, and the third one will be found in Hansard of May 24, at page 2803, relating to certain post office contracts.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: shall be glad to facilitate the obtaining of that information.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister aware of conditions on the grand banks of Newfoundland, in that trawlers of foreign nations are causing damage to property and endangering the lives of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia fishermen fishing there? If so, will the minister outline what he proposes to do in the matter? What is the result of the recent visit to Newfoundland of the special investigators sent by the department?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member for St. John's East followed his usual practice and sent me notice of his question, which is appreciated. We are aware of the problems in this area. The area itself is international waters, and control would require an international agreement among the various countries.
We are asking the captains of the Canadian fishing vessels to keep records and give us
3784	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
evidence of any destruction of or interference with the Canadian fishing gear. Further, we intend to discuss the problem with European countries this fall when our representative goes to Europe on other busi-iness, so that we might ultimately have a conference on the rules of the road in the northwest Atlantic. We are also sending our largest vessel, the Cygnus, into that area to give what protection we can to the Canadian fishermen and also to their vessels, but I might point out that the vessel is not going as a policeman; it is going to render assistance.
The hon. member's second question was:
What is the result of the recent visit to Newfoundland of the special investigators sent by the department?
The representatives returned from Newfoundland a few days ago and have prepared their report. They first submitted it to the fisheries prices support board. I have received it verbally, but not officially. The committee met on Friday, and again on Saturday. I think they will be making a full report today. This report will then go to my colleagues for consideration, along with my recommendation, and when it has been dealt with by cabinet, will be presented in due course.
The trawler policy of the government was outlined in the statement that I made some time ago and has not been changed to date.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 310, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1950, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Power to issue security for capital expenditures.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I want to ask the minister one or two questions with regard to clause 2. Looking at the schedule of figures set out I notice that the first line reads:	"Additions and betterments (less
retirements)." Will the minister explain the phrase "less retirements"?
[Mr. Mayhew.)


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The additions and betterments all told are $30 million odd, as indicated in the statement. Acquisition of securities, $717,000, I think relates to the point which my hon. friend has raised.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; I did
not make myself clear. The first line says: "Additions and betterments (less retirements)". I want the meaning of that phrase.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I beg your pardon. There
are equipment and equipment retirements, $3,771,980, which have been fully amortized out of depreciation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister says "equipment retirements" I am not sure that I am quite clear as to what he means. These are additions and betterments. One explanation I got, and which I am not quite clear about, was that actually there are certain recoveries from additions or betterments which turned out not to be needed and are in fact cashed in on; is that correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I shall have to inform myself on that. I am not too familiar with the operations of the Canadian National Railways. The information which I have before me is that the additions and betterments, as estimated and in the capital program of the Canadian National Railways which was before the sessional committee on railways, are $35,872,059, less equipment retirements credited, $3,771,980. The exact way in which that credit for equipment retirements is arrived at I am afraid I shall have to inform myself on and give it to my hon. friend later.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a figure lower down which I am also a little confused about. The total of authorized expenditures, the minister will see, is $42 million odd. Then at the bottom of the page we come to this item: "Amount estimated to be available from reserves for depreciation and debt discount amortization, $17,935,000," which is a deduction. My question is this. Depreciation I think we understand, but I would like to be quite clear as to the figure of debt discount amortization. I should like to know what it exactly means. Second, I should like to know whether in making this deduction the depreciation, for example, has any relation, let us say, to the particular additions and betterments that are being made, or whether it is an arbitrary figure just taken out of the general depreciation and used as a means of reducing the $42 million to $24 million. I think that is a matter of some substance, and I should like to understand it better.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only assume that the usual practice would be followed, that the railway is taking depreciation on its depreciable assets at the appropriate rate, and that there is out of the depreciation reserves cash available to purchase all new equipment which, if it were not available, would have to be obtained by additional borrowings.
While I am on this point I should like to clarify the answer to a question, which was given by my parliamentary assistant to my hon. friend on the resolution stage, as to the method of financing additional capital for Trans-Canada Air Lines. I think he said at that time that such additions were included in the requirements of the Canadian National Railways. As to that he was misinformed. The position with respect to the Trans-Canada Air Lines is this. As the committee is aware, the capital of $25 million was provided by the Canadian National Railways. Up to the present time additional capital requirements have been financed out of available depreciation reserves in the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Should these amounts be insufficient at some future date, it would be necessary either to obtain additional capital for the Trans-Canada Air Lines presumably from the Canadian National Railways or to obtain authorization to borrow, as is the case under this statute.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As to what the minister said about Trans-Canada Air Lines, I take it that that point may arise again when we get to section 10. Coming back to section 2, what the minister said about equipment does not seem to be relevant to this figure of $17 million about which I asked, because we have just above that a special item for equipment. I shall not delay the procedure at the present time, but would ask the minister to let me have further information with respect to depreciation and debt discount, because I think we should be satisfied that we are not giving ourselves in this instance any easement that is not fully justified.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be happy to do that. I notice from the information before me that for last year the comparable figure showed that there was estimated to be available $15,738,000 from the same reserve. I had assumed that all that detail had been discussed in the standing committee, and that in the committee of the whole I would be required to give only a general figure. However, I shall get the information for the hon. member and see that it is furnished to him.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Is any provision being made in this large appropriation of more than $42 million for the betterment of
Canadian National Railways and additions to railways in Nova Scotia, having special reference to the condition of the road from New Glasgow to Cape Breton? This road is noted for having the poorest alignment of any road in all Canada, having regard to the amount of traffic it carries. It is necessary that there be first class railway facilities in this district in the years just ahead.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Here again I am afraid I am not in a position to give that information. The committee will recall that the method followed with respect to C.N.R. financing is that its capital budget is placed before the sessional committee which deals with railways owned and operated by the government. When the budget is approved by that committee, the Minister of Finance then comes to the House of Commons asking for an appropriation act to authorize the necessary borrowing to cover those requirements. It is usually expected that the details as to the places where capital equipment will be used will be ascertained in the committee when the railway officials are in attendance. I have before me of course details as to the equipment to be purchased out of the borrowing to be authorized by this bill. I have not available at the moment details as to where that equipment is to be used. I could get it, if required.


Percy Chapman Black: Some of us did not find it convenient to attend the sittings of that committee. It appears to me that the minister should have the particulars of this large capital appropriation so that he might advise the committee as to where these major expenditures will be made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can do it, of course. I have complete details of how the money is to be spent, but I have not details as to where locomotives, flat cars, refrigerator cars and the like are to be operated. This has nothing to do with the improvement of rail facilities or roadbeds in various parts of Canada. The section now before us relates entirely to the acquisition of additional rolling stock. I would suppose that that rolling stock would be available for use in any part of Canada.


Percy Chapman Black: Before this section is permitted to pass I should like to know if any provision is being made for the completion of the Guysborough railway. This matter has been before the house in one way or another ever since I have been here, and has always appeared in its most encouraging form just before elections. Has any provision been made for the completion of the Guysborough railway in Nova Scotia?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not in this bill.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister tell us whether any provision is being made?
3786	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Mr. Abbott: Not being the Minister of Transport, I have not that information. Perhaps the hon. member could get it from the Minister of Transport. My responsibility under this bill is to get authorization to borrow the money required to do the things set out in this section. Of course I shall bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Transport, but I would not be in a position to answer it in a discussion on this bill. I could not under this bill give explanations of the ordinary operations of the Canadian National Railways in any part of Canada. I suggest that perhaps it is unreasonable to expect me to do so.


Mr. Adamson:: The minister has said that
he would give details as to the rolling stock.
I suggest that that should be done. I was a member of that committee, and I recall the debate with Mr. Gordon on this matter of new rolling stock, particularly new tractive power. While Mr. Gordon would not commit himself definitely as to the over-all increase in efficiency of new rolling stock, he was most emphatic about the increased efficiency of diesel tractive power over steam power. I am sure the committee would be interested in having the full details.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The following table will give that information:
Details of the item-new equipment, $8,751,400 Equipment for which financial provision is required during 1950:
3	1,000 h.p. diesel locomotives (M. & S.C. Railway)
4	3,000 h.p. diesel road locomotives
20 1,000 h.p. diesel switch locomotives 18 600 h.p. diesel road switchers 22 600 h.p. diesel road switchers 100 covered hopper cars 3 depressed flat cars 25 automobile cars (Newfoundland)
60 30-ton box cars (Newfoundland)
35 de luxe air-conditioned coaches
5	mail and express cars
3	mail cars (Newfoundland)
50 standard baggage cars
4	standard baggage cars (G.T.W.)
3 standard baggage cars (Newfoundland)
10 express refrigerator cars (Newfoundland)
6	sleepers (Newfoundland)
50 sleepers
7	cafe parlour cars 10 diners
3 electric locomotives (suburban service)
6 multiple unit cars (suburban service)
15 multiple unit car trailers


Percy Chapman Black: It is important to Nova Scotia to know the policy of the government and the department as to the introduction of diesel power in those areas where coal mines depend so greatly upon use of coal by the railways. Is the minister able to give any specific information with respect to that policy as it is applied to Nova Scotia?
[Mr. Black (Cumberland).!


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I am not. I should think it would be obvious that questions about railway policy might be answered more readily in the first instance by the management of the railways, and then possibly by the Minister of Transport-although he is not directly responsible for the policy of the Canadian National Railways. The persons responsible are the president and directors. Each year there is an opportunity to discuss those matters before the special committee. I realize such discussion is not always possible because all hon. members are not members of that committee. I should think if anything were needed to illustrate the fallacy of entrusting all functions of the house to committees, this might be one instance. I am afraid I have not the information asked. I am not qualified to answer detailed questions as to the policy of the Canadian National Railways.


Percy Chapman Black: I disagree with the minister to this extent, that when he comes to the House of Commons asking for an appropriation running into many millions of dollars, hon. members are entitled to know the purposes for which the borrowing will be made, and to what use it will be applied.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That information is set out in section 2 of the bill.


Mr. Gillis:: I was a member of the special committee, and the matter to which the hon. member for Cumberland has referred was thoroughly discussed before it. Indeed, it was the first time since I have been a member that I have noted a realistic approach to the problem made by any official in any department.
The present chairman of the Canadian National Railways, referring to this question of the use of maritime coal, did tell the committee that in a survey they have made they have set out what is now known as an economic area for the use of Canadian coal so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned. He told us that as it relates to the maritime provinces that economic area is from Sydney, Nova Scotia to Coteau, Quebec. Their experience this year in seeking to secure coal from the operators in Nova Scotia was that they could not supply that coal within a million tons. This was an abnormal year because of the depletion of stockpiles.
This matter was discussed at some length in the committee, and I am satisfied that the present policy of the Canadian National is to use Canadian coal wherever practicable. It is practicable to use Canadian coal economically in the areas Mr. Gordon set out

before the committee. I am convinced that in the marketing of Canadian coal as much fault lies with the operator as with the Canadian National Railways. It is largely a matter of price. I am satisfied also that if the mechanics outlined by the chairman of the Canadian National in relation to tHe purchase of Canadian coal are followed out in the future it will be found that there is an economic market for Nova Scotia coal.
I was a member of that committee, and since it met I have discussed this matter publicly and have broadcast on it. I am going to continue to urge the use of as much Nova Scotia coal as is possible and economical in that area set out by the Canadian National president. I rose to make these few remarks because I know the matter was thoroughly discussed in the committee. I am satisfied with the attitude taken by the Canadian National, but I am not satisfied with the attitude of the operators.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does the minister know what percentage of this equipment will be made in Canada, and what the Canadian content will be?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that it is all to be made here. As with other machinery and equipment, there will be a substantial import content in connection with certain items.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the situation with regard to the manufacture in Canada of this type of equipment? I am referring particularly to diesels, turbine engines and modern tractor cars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not want to be held to this, but I am told that the import content is 20 to 25 per cent. Diesel locomotives are now being made by Montreal Locomotive Works, and will shortly be made by General Motors Diesel Company in Ontario. I have not at hand any specific information as to the exact import content, but I think it must necessarily vary according to the type of equipment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Section 5-Power to aid other companies.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like the minister to explain the wording in the first three lines of this section, which is as follows:
The national company may aid and assist, in any manner not inconsistent with the terms of section 2, any other or others of the said companies and railways.
Canadian National Railways
Is that a roundabout way of saying that all the railways in the national railway system, which is the phrase used in section 2, may be assisted? It seems to me a rather odd and not very clear way of expressing it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I never gave consideration to it until my hon. friend raised the point. I am told that this is the identical language which has been used in successive bills for a number of years. It would seem to indicate that the Canadian National Railways may assist its subsidiary companies by virtue of the provisions of this bill, provided that such assistance does not contravene the provisions of section 2, which is the section giving authorization to issue securities.


Mr. Fraser:: Would that take in Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I am informed that T.C.A. is financed out of the $25 million initial capital, and I am informed also-my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will correct me if I am wrong-that capital requirements up to the present time have been financed out of depreciation reserves. I indicated a moment ago that if further capital were required it would require an amendment to the T.C.A. Act.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But if they required running expenses, could they take that from the Canadian National?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are you sure of that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry; I did not quite catch my hon. friend's question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned that the T.C.A. could not get any capital from the C.N.R., but could the T.C.A. get operating expenses?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be subject to a special vote to cover any deficit, in the same way as with the Canadian National.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are voting large sums of money, and the minister has told us on several occasions, very frankly I admit, that he just does not know the details of what we are asking for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I must take exception to that remark. I know the details of the items for which the money is being asked, but I do not know the details of the operations of the Canadian National Railways. I suggest that that is not relevant to the bill we are considering at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish the minister would let me finish. On a number of occasions when we asked the Minister of

Canadian National Railways Transport for information he told us that they were matters for the finance department. This morning we are asking questions and we are told that they are matters for the transport department. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has kindly helped us over one or two jumps. I want to point out, as the hon. member for Cumberland has said, that we are being hampered here because the other member of .the team is not present. Previously he has referred us to the Minister of Finance in a general way. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Finance needs to know all the details, but I am suggesting that he should know the details of what we are asking for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am prepared to answer any relevant question on every section of the bill now before the committee, but I am not prepared, nor am I qualified, to answer questions dealing with the general operations of the Canadian National Railways or Trans-Canada Air Lines. I suggest respectfully that this is not the time to ask those questions. If any information is wanted on the particular sections of this bill I am prepared to give it. If I have not the answer today, I will get it. But so far a number of questions have not been directed to these particular seotions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry to go back-	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not even know the section we are on at the moment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The questions I asked were with regard to depreciation and amortization, and I suggest that they are relevant.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And I promised to get the information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am content with that. I think we must be perfectly clear. We asked for information which we should be able to get now, and we let the section go through, whether wisely or unwisely I will not say. But that concession was made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Guarantee.
Agar Rodney Adamson: There is $26 million to be financed by one or more equipment trust issues which I understand are guaranteed by the federal government without reservation. Will these be issued through a trust company and be payable in Canadian funds, or are we to borrow money from United States sources?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The technique followed in connection with equipment trust certificates is well known to my hon. friend. This type

of certificate originated some years ago in the United States and ordinarily would not be guaranteed by the dominion government. They are secured by a specific pledge, a charge on specific assets in favour of a trustee; and the lender on those securities relies upon the specific charge he has on the locomotives and rolling stock that may be specifically pledged to secure the loan. As my hon. friend knows, they are considered a fairly high grade type of security. As to whether they would be issued in Canadian or United States funds, that would depend upon the market in which it was proposed to buy the equipment. In this case my understanding is that these equipment trust certificates are to be issued in Canadian funds.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then I gather that the method of repayment is that for each ton mile or each traction mile travelled by the locomotive, a certain amount is amortized or written off for the payment of the equipment trust certificate; in other words, it is a self-liquidating form of security. What is the practice now with these securities; for how long do they run?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I did not inform myself as to that. I can get the information very quickly, perhaps before the committee rises.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think it would be interesting. I just want to know the term, and the method of repayment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to get that information.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This was brought up in the committee, where quite a long discussion took place with Mr. Gordon and with the comptroller of the Canadian National.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-When revenue of national railway system insufficient to meet operating'and income charges.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the clause giving authority to vote money to meet so-called deficits in connection with current revenues. Before proceeding with what I rose to say may I make it clear that I support this bill, and I do so for two reasons. On the one hand I feel that the Canadian National is encumbered with a capital structure that makes these deficits inevitable, and therefore we have no option but to meet them. The other point is that the Canadian National, as the national railway, is called upon to give service in a good many parts of the country where it is not a profit-making operation.

Since we call upon the Canadian National to do that, we have no alternative but to pay any deficits that arise therefrom. However, when parliament is called upon to vote these sums of money, or to give authority to vote them, as is the case under section 9, it does seem to me that our questions as to the ways in which the money is spent should be answered in parliament.
I have in mind a great many questions I have asked about pensions, special allowances in lieu of pensions, and special lump sum allowances to employees of the Canadian National. In all cases but one my questions have been answered. I am grateful for the extensive information I have been given in relation to this matter. It makes it possible for me to point out the large number of Canadian National employees in receipt of pensions that are far too low, concerning which the Canadian National should do something soon. But it does seem farcical that the authorities should be prepared to answer one after another all the questions to which I shall make reference in a moment, and then give a blank with respect to one particular question.
Let me give a small amount of detail. On March 22 of this year, as reported at page 997 of Hansard, I was given specific details as to the number of employees contributing to various plans, and more particularly as to the number of retired employees drawing pensions in the brackets I indicated in my question, starting with less than $25 per month and going right up to $99.99 per month. The number in the lower brackets is really startling. In addition I asked for the number drawing pensions of $100 or more per month, and I was given the figure of 9,855. Later, on April 24, as recorded at page 1806 of Hansard, I was given a breakdown of those drawing pensions of more than $100 per month. I asked for them in various brackets going right up to $499.99 per month, and also the number drawing pensions of $500 or more per month. In all cases my questions were answered without hesitation. In the same set of questions on April 24 I went on to ask the number of retired employees in receipt of retirement allowances, including pensions from any pension plans plus supplementary allowances totalling various amounts, starting with $100 per month and going up to $500 per month or over, and again I was given the information. I find there are only eight people drawing regular pensions which include allowances supplementary to whatever pensions they may have earned. Those eight include four in the bracket between $100 and $200 per month, three in the bracket between $200 and $300 per month, and one in the bracket 55946-2401
Canadian National Railways between $400 and $500 per month. In those cases, of course, what I was asking about had to do with regular pension payments which are received month by month or quarter by quarter, as the case may be.
I emphasize that up to this point there was no difficulty. Whatever questions I asked about pensions or special allowances were answered just as soon as the government could get the information from the Canadian National Railways. Then I moved along and on May 15, as recorded at page 2517 of Hansard, I asked further questions about special retirement allowances. In particular I asked this question:
How many employees or officials of the Canadian National Railways, upon retirement, have been given lump sum retirement allowances (a) of $5,000 or less; (b) more than $5,000 but not more than $25,000, since January 1, 1930?
The answer to those questions was "none". I believe that is a correct answer; I am told there have been no lump sum retirement allowances in those amounts. The main point is that I got an answer. That information was given me in addition to all the detailed information I have referred to at these various pages of Hansard as to pensions and regular supplementary allowances paid to various retired employees. Well, it seemed to me only logical, since I was given all that information, that I should go a step higher.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. How does the hon. member relate all this to section 9?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I had related it in the beginning. My point is that in section 9 we are giving the authority to vote money to the Canadian National Railways to meet current deficits.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To make advances; loans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To make advances; but read the last few lines of the section, which provide that these advances are to be paid back to the government out of revenues of the company, except for any insufficiency-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Or out of a vote of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -which is to be made up by a vote of this house. My point is that this is the authority for us to vote money to meet deficits.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend should be corrected on that. This is not the authority to vote money for deficits. That is done in another place, by an item in the estimates. This is the authority to make temporary advances out of the consolidated revenue fund to cover operating deficits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it also says:
Provided that all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the Minister of Finance from the annual

Canadian National Railways revenues of the national railway system in so far as such revenues are sufficient and any insufficiency shall be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
Now, perhaps we are talking about the same thing but in different language.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My only reason for interjecting is that I have noticed the press has taken this bill as covering the annual deficit of the Canadian National Railways. I am sure that is unintentional, but it is misleading. This is an annual bill to provide for advances to Canadian National Railways. The deficit, if any, has to be voted here each year, and the practice has been to bring it forward in the supplementary estimates each year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But whether it is out of advances or money subsequently voted by parliament, it is some of that money that has to be used to pay these special supplementary allowances, and special retirement allowances which are paid to certain employees over and above whatever pension rights they may have earned or paid for. My contention is that if we are called upon to provide money, either as advances under this section or later by a special vote, basing my request upon this section, we should be given that information.
The point I am trying to make, is that not only is there the argument I have just expressed, but in addition there is the fact that the government readily gives all this other information relating to pensions, supplementary allowances, and retiring allowances. But when they are asked how many lump sum retirement allowances of more than $25,000 but less than $50,000 were paid, and how many above $50,000, they refuse to give any information. The Minister of Transport made a statement which occupies almost half a column in Hansard, the gist of which is that he will not answer my question. I think it is wrong to ask us to vote public money for these various purposes, and then not give us information as to how it is expended. If they had refused us all information about pensions and supplementary allowances or retirement allowances, I would still kick; but at least there would be some consistency on the part of the government in making a refusal across the board. But they give us all the information I have indicated, and refuse to answer only that one question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They tell us about the small fish but not the big ones.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, they give a good bit of information about the big fish. They tell us about people who are drawing a pension of $400 or $500 per month or over, and they say that there have been no special lump sum payments below $25,000. But so far as payments above that amount are concerned,


they refuse to give us the information. I do not thing it is fair to parliament to ask us to make these advances or to vote money later, and then refuse us this information.
I want to say again-since I see some support coming from my friends to the right, and I welcome that support even though they may not agree with me in favouring the bill itself-that I support this measure for the two reasons I indicated at the start, and the fact I do support it should give me that much more right to insist that the information I have requested be given.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I am a little interested to know how the member for Winnipeg North Centre could anticipate our views, and I am wholly unaware of the differences in his mind with regard to some of the aspects of this matter. Be that as it may, I do not think the minister has correctly interpreted this section. I do not believe he has intentionally misled the house, but there are features of it which he has overlooked.
This section provides that the government may make the advances required by Canadian National Railways, and then the last part of the section provides that all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the Minister of Finance from the annual revenues of the national railway system, in so far as such revenues are sufficient, and any insufficiency shall be provided for by a subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament. I am not arguing one way or the other as to the desirability of providing for the money in this way, but I do want to emphasize what the effect is. May I say, in regard to a remark which I heard at the time the member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking, that we are taking up a lot of time on this bill, that we are dealing with something here that is likely to involve over $40 million. I think the members of this house should know exactly what they are doing.
As to whether that amount should or should not be provided, I do not think there is going to be any debate. Certainly the amount that will be contributed by this parliament subsequently will include all items of expenditure, whatever they may be. This bill is not merely permissive legislation which allows the advance to be made, which advances then are to be reimbursed to such extent as they can be reimbursed out of revenues of the railway. It goes further, it says that any insufficiency shall be provided for by a subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament. It does not say "may"; consequently any subsequent discretionary authority of parliament is removed by the passing of this section in its present form.

The minister says that this is subsequently dealt with by a vote. He has overlooked the fact that parliament now decides that any deficit, whatever it may be, shall be paid. This becomes statutory authority for the figure approved by the auditors which is included in the subsequent vote. It is not only dealt with by parliament, but it is authorized by parliament in what is now done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My friend is perfectly right. I should have thought that was self-evident. The only purpose in putting this provision in the latter part of the section is that, instead of saying that such deficit shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without bringing the matter before parliament, it will have to be done by a special vote. This section indicates that any deficit will be paid for out of public money, but the payment must be authorized by a subsequent vote. My recollection of the purpose in framing it this way is that each year there should be brought before parliament the details of the deficit, if any, of Canadian National Railways, and that parliament should be asked to vote on it specifically.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the minister think of the point I was drawing to his attention, namely, that we get a considerable amount of information up to a certain point and then draw a blank?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not going to express any view on that, because it has been discussed in the house on a number of occasions. We did have a vote on whether or not my hon. friend should get the information he requested, and the matter was decided. I am not going to traverse that ground again. My hon. friend is entitled to his view, and I am entitled to mine.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps the Minister of Transport would feel differently if he were here this morning.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He may, but I doubt it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not send for him?


Agar Rodney Adamson: If the negotiations which are now under way with regard to wage rates of the employees of this railway do result, and one hopes they will not result, in the deficit Mr. Gordon suggested of approximately $90 million, there will probably be a greater deficit than is anticipated in this bill, so I suppose a new item would have to be voted by parliament.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, there is no deficit specifically contemplated in this particular section we are now considering. As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, it refers to a net deficit in operating revenue, and that deficit will have to be voted in
Canadian National Railways accordance with the terms of this section as a special item. This bill does not contemplate a deficit of necessity, but it authorizes the advance of money to the Canadian National Railways to meet such deficit if it occurs. The extent of the deficit is of course not determined until the year has been closed and the auditors have completed their report. Then, and then only, is a final item brought in in the supplementary estimates establishing the amount of the deficit.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I might answer the question of another member about equipment trust issues. The most recent issue is dated March 15, 1950, for $22 million. It was for ten years and carried an interest rate of 2J per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What funds?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Canadian funds, I believe, but I have not that detail.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Through whom was it
negotiated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not that detail. That was a note that was sent to me. I have not that detailed information here, but of course it is readily available.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I assume it was negotiated through Canadian trust companies,


Douglas Charles Abbott: Presumably.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Or security houses.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The issue presumably would be sold through the usual channels, and the trustee would be a trust company.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When we were talking before, the minister said that any advances to T.C.A. would have to be voted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is under the next section. Can we deal with that matter under section 10?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I speak on it now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps we could finish section 9, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready to carry clause 9?


Clarence Gillis: No. I do not like the idea of referring to this bill as one that is designed to wipe off a deficit of the Canadian National Railways. That is absolutely wrong.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member is right.


Clarence Gillis: Because last year the Canadian National Railways had an operating profit of over $2 million, did they not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not after fixed charges.


Clarence Gillis: That is just the point.

Canadian National Railways


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the whole point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know.


Clarence Gillis: The Canadian National Railways start off each year with the deficit you are now talking about. It is a fixed interest charge on old defunct railroads that should have been put into liquidation. In the second place, $21 million a year is paid back by the Canadian National to the Canadian government, in interest on loans that they make for refinancing purpose. The assertion that the government for beneficent reasons each year pays the deficit that accumulates to the Canadian National is wrong and misleading.
I like to be fair and honest about these things. The Canadian National had no deficit last year. You are not wiping out a deficit. You are paying interest charges of $24 million a year on bonds of old defunct railroads that produce no revenue. You can perhaps justify that because they are performing some service in communities where the C.P.R. would not operate. That $21 million interest earned by the money that we vote in this house goes back to the Canadian government in fixed interest charges. I think we should be clear about the fact that the railroad is not operating at a deficit.
I do not want to discuss this matter at length. It is before a commission now. The C. N. R. president is emphatic about a revision of the whole capital structure of the Canadian National Railways. I do not like to hear the Minister of Finance referring to this bill as one that is designed to wipe off a deficit of the Canadian National Railways.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He did not.


Clarence Gillis: Because they did not have a deficit. They inherited the mess they have, and I hope that Mr. Gordon will get the co-operation of the members of this house in cleaning up that historic mess which they inherited and for which they are not responsible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for trying to clear up a point that I had tried to clear up, namely, that this is not a bill to cover operating deficits of the Canadian National Railways. It is a bill to authorize advances to Canadian National Railways, first, for an approved capital program, second, if needed, to authorize temporary advances to cover an operating deficit. That is all the bill is for. I do not suppose the committee expects me at this time to enter into a discussion of recapitalization, if that is desirable, of the Canadian National Railways.
It is a question which is an extremely involved one, as the committee knows, entail-


ing a great many considerations. I really would not want to embark on that discussion at this time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You could not explain it before lunch.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make one comment. I think we all agree that there is a question of first-class importance here, that is to say, what burden should be carried by the management of the Canadian National Railways. On the one hand it is obviously unfair that they should be saddled with a deficit or a burden from the past which really makes their operating position impossible for the future. On the other hand, certain relief has been given in the past.
I think the matter is before a commission now and it seems to me that it is a matter which is going to require great judgment and discernment. Actually the idea that the Canadian National Railways operating position is greatly worse than that of other railways does not stand the test if you compare it with that of some perfectly good railways in the United States. I say that for this reason: I am sympathetic to the management of the Canadian National Railways, but on the other hand I think discretion must be shown in dealing with this question.
I want to ask the minister a question with regard to the wording at the beginning of clause 9. I will ask him to follow it with me as I read slowly the first three lines, because they seem to me to present a rather curious result.
Has the minister the wording of clause 9 before him?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The first three lines read as follows:
If at any time before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, the available revenues of the national railway system are not sufficient to pay all the operating and income charges of the system . . .
And so on. The next section I think makes perfectly clear what I think is obvious, that it is the annual revenue that is referred to there; that is to say, it is the revenue for 1950. Does the minister agree with that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then what is the reason for the time lag? Does the minister agree that, as it is worded now, if you take it alone, if anyone came along, not knowing anything about the background of this matter, I am not at all sure that he would read the words "the available revenues of the national railway system" as meaning only for the year 1950.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am glad my hon. friend raised that question. The purpose of that wording is this. In previous bills the date has been March 31 of the current year. The committee will realize that because the sessional committee rarely sits before March or April, it is not possible to bring this bill in until usually the end of May, or sometimes late in June. It thereby becomes effective for a period of only eight or nine months if March 31 is used. Therefore the date of July 1 was used, in order to give the legislation, so far as may be practicable, a full twelve months operation. That is the explanation. That applies only to the current advances; of course the July 1, 1951, does not relate to the capital advances referred to in subsection 2.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister agree that the words "the available revenues of the national railway system," in order to be perfectly clear should be followed by the words "during the year 1950"?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is enabling power. If the C.N.R., on the current basis, is short of cash to pay its operating charges at a given point, whether it is in the middle of the year or at any other time, then this section operates and the government makes temporary advances. And once a year, as I have indicated and as the leader of the opposition has underlined, we come to parliament and get a specific vote for the deficit in the particular year. But the moneys are advanced, if necessary, from month to month out of the consolidated revenue fund.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us assume that in the first months of the year, say in 1950, the Canadian National Railways had an operating deficit-if I may use that unpleasant expression-of $25 million. Let us assume for the sake of argument that in the first three months of the year 1951 they had a tremendous run of luck and had an operating surplus of $25 million. Would they use that to cancel out the deficit of the year before? In other words, are we merging the two years in the matter of accounting?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, we are not merging the two years in the matter of accounting. Perhaps I could illustrate the matter in this way. Suppose in the month of May, 1951, by reason of operating conditions, the Canadian National Railways were running a substantial revenue deficit and needed money. The only way they could get it would be to borrow from the government. The date that is put in this section is to enable such advances to be made. My hon. friend will recall that last year I suggested, because it seemed to me to be more sensible, an open-ended period, subject to the requirements of the deficit that
Canadian National Railways had to be voted. That did not commend itself to the views of the committee. I do not quarrel with that; but what I have been trying to do is to provide a period of approximately twelve months during which this section will be operative. There is no intention to merge, nor do I consider that the language of the section permits any merging of, the accounts of the railways over two periods.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does this bill not merely set up a sort of letter of credit for the railways on which they can draw until the vote is made in the next session of parliament?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Subject to the approval of the Minister of Transport and the governor in council, that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-When revenue of Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries insufficient to meet operating and income charges.
George Alexander Drew: Clause 10 is the one which provides for the advances of money to Trans-Canada Air Lines and the subsequent appropriation by parliament of any deficit which may result during the following year.
As I pointed out in connection with the previous clause, which relates to the Canadian National Railways, this is not merely a provision which permits the government, with the authorization of parliament, to advance moneys to the Canadian National Railways as they are required for their operation; it also establishes-, as a decision of this parliament at this time, that whatever the deficiency may be as a result of these operations parliament shall-not "may"-by subsequent deficit appropriation meet that amount. Since that is so, this is an appropriate point at which to examine the whole situation with which we are confronted, and to indicate that every step should be taken to make that deficit as small as possible by every practical device that can be adopted.
While this is a bill presented by the Minister of Finance, it is presented through him on behalf of the government to deal with these governmental operations. Since the government is responsible for the broad problem, that problem should be examined in relation to the authorization now given, so -that any considerations affecting steps that may be taken by the government between now and the next session to reduce to the ultimate deficit may be placed before parliament and the government at this time.
I think it is time-in fact the time is overdue-for parliament to review carefully the events that have -taken place in connection with the Trans-Canada Air Lines. I hope that in making the comments I do we shall

Canadian National Railways not be confronted with the specious suggestion that an attempt to approach the problems of Trans-Canada Air Lines on a businesslike basis implies criticism of the line or of those who operate it. That device has been employed too often in an attempt to divert discussion which should be directed to the operation of many of these great enterprises, which can carry on only with the approval of parliament, and which parliament should certainly examine most carefully.
I think it would be well, when we remember that Trans-Canada Air Lines had by far the largest deficit in its history during this past year, to review the basis upon which parliament approved the setting up of this line. In introducing and discussing on March 22, 1937, the bill dealing with this organization, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say, as recorded at page 2043 of Hansard of that year:
It is thought that from the start the mail contract and such passenger and express business as is immediately available should cover the cost of the services. We have made provision, however, for a subsidy to protect the service in that period. After 1940, as I have said, the. subsidy provision expires and the mail contract will be on the basis of cost of the service. I think that outlines fairly well the intention of the bill. The whole matter can be more fully considered when the bill is brought down.
These words are simple, understandable, and not open to any misinterpretation. This operation was to maintain itself from its revenues, and after-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the leader of opposition. Does he think that on this clause he can go into the history of Trans-Canada Air Lines and explain why such deficits have to be met now? It seems to me that on clause 10, to be strictly relevant, what should be discussed is whether or not the deficit is to be met in the manner indicated in clause 10; there should not be any explanation of deficits. I should like to hear the leader of the opposition on that point.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I think it is strictly relevant to the provisions of this section. Parliament is being asked to provide the money required for the operation of this line. This house is asked to approve a section which says that any deficit resulting at the end of the year shall be met by parliamentary appropriation. What I am pointing out is that it is desirable to review the situation so that when the government is dealing with this subject, provided that the house authorizes this, as there is every indication it will, the authorization shall be accompanied with proposed suggestions which they should consider to the end that the deficit may be reduced as much as possible. I am simply reviewing the situation which has developed from that point to the

present for the purpose of indicating things that could and should be done so that this deficit may be as small as possible. There is no other place that I am aware of where proper consideration could be given to these points.
In Hansard of June 24,1940, we find on page 1050 of the budget the following item under Trans-Canada Air Lines:
The operation of the Trans-Canada Air Lines expanded greatly during the calendar year 1939. Operating revenue increased from $591,000 to $2,350,000. The annual deficit, after payment of interest on capital and depreciation, decreased from $818,000 in 1938 to $412,000 in 1939.
That seemed to be in accord with the general pattern that had been projected by the minister who proposed this bill. In 1941, as reported at page 1743 of Hansard of March 20, the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say:
Last year the earnings of the air lines, after all write-offs and interest on investment, were something over $500,000. This year it is anticipated that the earnings from air mail based on the increased mileage and the 40-cent rate will be $3,153,000. The passenger revenue will be $2,170,000. Miscellaneous revenue, comprised chiefly of express, will amount to $250,000, giving a total gross revenue of $5,573,500. Operating expenses are anticipated to be $5,315,477, giving an operating income of $258,032, less interest on capital, and other income charges, of $197,500. That leaves us with an estimated surplus of $60,523.
Actually in the years that followed a surplus was built up. Therefore up to that point the pattern that had been projected by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was being followed. Then the pattern changed. We have had a succession of deficits which first of all wiped out the accumulated surplus, and last year reached $4,317,593. I submit that when the House of Commons is asked to pass a section authorizing advances to any of the public bodies brought into existence by the parliament of Canada it is appropriate to examine the assurances given at the time and to see whether we have or have not departed from that basis. If we have, then we should find out what can be done to limit the deficit which, by this very section, parliament now says will be met by a subsequent parliamentary appropriation.
This subject was before the parliamentary committee on railways and shipping. That committee has tabled its report. The findings of the committee are before the house. I would point out to hon. members that the report of the committee does not represent the unanimous opinion of the members thereof, and that other proposals which were not incorporated in the report were made in the committee. Since those proposals are not before us today I submit it is appropriate that they should now be placed before this committee and the government, so that when

we are considering a provision which says that the deficits shall be paid, we may at the same time suggest what should be done to limit such deficits to the lowest possible figure.
In addition to the recommendations contained in the report of the committee on railways and shipping on May 11, 1950, the following addition had been moved as an amendment to the report:
Your committee recommends that a uniform system should be adopted for the presentation of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines, and that the consolidated balance sheet should show the accumulated surplus or deficit position in each case.
The vote taken on that occasion, may I add, was not one supported merely by members of the party to which I belong. However, the amendment was defeated by the close vote of eight to six.
Then another amendment was moved, suggesting that the following be added to the report:
Your committee recommends that an accounting system should be adopted which will make it possible to determine the profit or loss on each operating route.
On that motion the vote was even, seven to seven, with the chairman casting the deciding vote against the motion.
A further amendment was presented which proposed this as an addition to the report:
That the possibility of improvement in operating costs of Trans-Canada Air Lines be fully explored.
That was voted down. A further amendment was offered, that the following be added to the report:
That it is desirable to consider whether Trans-Canada Air Lines should be under the authority of the same minister as the Canadian National Railways, and also that the same minister who is responsible for the administration of the Aeronautics Act should have ministerial responsibility for Trans-Canada Air Lines.
That also was voted down, and, as in other cases I have mentioned, the amendment was supported not only by members of one party.
These motions, made for the purpose of adding these recommendations to the report of the committee which has been tabled, were directed to the one sound purpose in financial affairs, to giving parliament an opportunity to examine in a businesslike way this whole proposition so that, while Trans-Canada Air Lines might operate in the most efficient manner possible, steps should be taken, as they are taken in every large business, to examine its internal financial structure as well as its operating methods for the purpose of effecting any economies which might be made.
Canadian National Railways
Strangely enough, when it is suggested that there be economies in the operation of government enterprises, all too often we are met with the suggestion that an attempt is being made to limit the services rendered. The fact is that in any big business the services rendered are almost invariably increased by an examination such as that proposed in this instance. In fact it is the history of business that almost invariably where sensible and cautious steps of this kind are not taken, instead of expanding, the business will decrease in the extent of its operation, and ultimately, if that condition continues long enough without any effective internal examination of the kind here suggested, it will disappear.
When parliament takes the responsibility for setting up great publicly-owned enterprises it should be its responsibility also to require businesslike methods in dealing with them, so that the operations of such enterprises will be not only as efficient as they can be in the interests of the public, but also so that every practical economy may be practised to the end that, if possible, such economies may increase the general efficiency of the system in providing the service it purports to provide.
These proposals clearly reflect what was under consideration. The first part of the recommendation was that the report should contain a request that a uniform system should be adopted for the presentation of the accounts of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines, and that the consolidated balance sheet should show the accumulated surplus or deficit position in each case. That proposal was made because the Trans-Canada Air Lines is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canadian National Railways, and yet there is no uniform system of presenting accounts. In the examination of the accounts of the parent organization and of the subsidiary organization certain differences appear which do not make it as easy as it should be to examine the comparative statements.
It is desirable that there should be shown the accumulated surplus or deficit position. The reason for that is obvious, as those who sat on the committee will recall. I do not suggest that the accumulated deficit should become an additional part of the capital obligation, but it should be shown in the statement below the balance sheet so that those who examine the annual statement will know what the present position is as it has accumulated over the years.
When there were surpluses, those surpluses did accumulate and were carried in the annual statement. As those surpluses were exhausted by deficits, there should have

Canadian National Railways been carried forward a figure which would show the deficits so that those who examined the statement each year would be in a position to see exactly what the results of the operation had been.
When the time comes, as we hope it will, when there will be surpluses, it would not present an accurate picture of the long-term operation if the statement simply started in with a surplus and then the statements in future years showed the accumulation of surpluses. That would not represent the true operating position of the lines. One may ask: Why have these figures in there? They should be in there for the same reason that you have figures in the statement of any great operation of this kind which is owned by those who have invested their money in the ordinary way.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is extremely interesting to note the measure of impatience that is shown after a discussion of ten minutes of an item that last year involved the expenditure of public money to the amount of $4,317,000 and will likely involve the expenditure of a very substantial amount of public money during the coming year. I think it shows an extraordinary disregard of the responsibility of parliament for any hon. member to indicate impatience when we are examining a subject of this importance, one which has not been discussed previously at any time during the present session.
The next resolution that was presented was that an accounting system should be adopted which would make it possible to determine the profit or loss on each operating route. At the present time it is not possible for anyone examining the statement of the air lines to tell whether a particular route is making or losing money. Not only is it not possible to tell that from the statements; it was not possible to obtain that information by questions in the committee itself.
Surely if this parliament is to assume responsibility for giving a blank cheque to the government-the government can pay this money only with the authority of parliament-then, in this case as in other cases, parliament should be able to examine the results of the operation of each particular route, whether it be an air line, a railway, a shipping service, or any other similar activity of an organization created by parliament.
The inability to obtain this information is further evidence of the extent to which these operations are removed from the knowledge of the people's representatives once parliament takes the responsibility for creating

them by an act of this representative body. These facts should be brought back to parliament so that parliament itself can say what should or should not be done in regard to these great enterprises, which in this case as in other cases are calling for money from the Canadian taxpayers with which to carry on their services.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before we continue with the study of Bill No. 310 I should like to make a statement arising out of an incident which occurred on June 9 last, while the house was in committee of supply. At the time we were discussing item 202, of the Department of National Defence, and in the course of the discussion the hon. member for Calgary East was called to order. In the Montreal Standard of the next day, June 10, on page 12, appeared an article by British United Press, as follows:
P.C. criticizes ruling barring Shakespeare
Douglas Harkness, Calgary opposition M.P., complained today that parliamentary debate was becoming so genteel that it was no longer proper to quote some sections of Shakespeare's plays in Commons.
Harkness was ruled out of order by house committee chairman L. R. Beaudoin last night when he attempted to quote from King Lear.
After I saw this article I spoke to the gentleman of the British United Press who was responsible for it, who told me he did not want to give the impression that the hon. member had been called to order because he was quoting Shakespeare. Therefore I let the matter drop. However, on the editorial page of the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, June 17, there was an article headed "To this we have come," which read:
Last week in the House of Commons committee chairman L. R. Beaudoin ruled Shakespeare "out of order": out of order at any rate if he was to be quoted against a Liberal backbencher.
That is what parliament has come to. Once a former prime minister could speak memorably on "the greatest Englishman," and the speeches of a Wilfrid Laurier could be sprinkled with Shakespeare and the bible. Today a quotation from the bible is as rare in the house as a passage in Latin-and Shakespeare is out of order.
The article continues in the same vein. I imagine the record, as it appears in Hansard at pages 3458 and 3459, should speak for itself. As all hon. members know, literary authorities are quoted frequently, and hon. members are not declared out of order because they quote a literary authority or the bible. They are called to order when their remarks are not relevant to the item under

discussion, if we are discussing an item in supply. That is exactly what happened in this instance, and the record speaks for itself.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were getting closer on various occasions recently to quotations from Chaucer than from Shakespeare; but I feel sure hon. members will agree that there was no such arbitrary ruling in the particular case referred to.
When we rose I was pointing out certain matters which had been under consideration in the committee and which it seemed to a number of us who supported motions to amend the report should have been given consideration in that report. I am suggesting they should be given every consideration between now and the time the government presents the item which will represent the deficit at the end of the year for Trans-Canada Air Lines. I had been speaking particularly about the desirability of following ordinary business practices in examining the affairs of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and of having all the details of its operation fully available to those responsible for the voting of money. That money is not voted by the government; it is voted by parliament, and parliament should know what are the facts and should be able to express itself in regard to them.
In this instance it was clearly pointed out in the committee that an examination of the operation of individual routes might indicate not only the necessity for certain improvements in the methods followed in connection with those routes, but also the necessity for their extension; and it was contended that Trans-Canada Air Lines might well extend its operations outside Canada to a very much wider area, with advantage to the system and to the people of Canada generally. There was also a motion suggesting that the report should advocate consideration of an improvement in the operating costs of Trans-Canada Air Lines. That again is a simple business proposition, a request that should appeal to anyone who wants straight business methods to apply to the operation of this great public service or any other public service parliament has authorized and for which the government is responsible in its administrative capacity.
Then it was proposed that consideration should be given to the advisability of bringing the administrative direction of Trans-Canada Air Lines under the same minister who is responsible for the Canadian National Railways. It was pointed out that Trans-Canada Air Lines is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways, and it therefore seemed unreasonable and
Canadian National Railways in many ways impractical to have the administrative supervision of the parent organization under one minister and administrative responsibility for the wholly owned subsidiary under another. Without elaborating on those points, which it seems to me 'speak for themselves, I should like to deal with the suggestion that consideration should be given the possibility of improving operating costs of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Surely it is possible to make a simple business proposal such as that without the suggestion that there is any reflection on Trans-Canada Air Lines, or an attempt to limit its effectiveness or restrict its service. On the contrary, if the suggestion were acted upon it should be possible to extend the services of Trans-Canada Air Lines by operating an even wider service at a lower cost to the people of Canada.
I think this is the appropriate time to point out that this house has not been fully informed as to many things connected with the ordinary business of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and that in some cases where an attempt has been made to inform the house the facts were obscured in a way that led to a complete misunderstanding of the situation by many hon. members and by the public generally, who formed their impression from what was said in the house.
I recall to hon. members that last year there was an opportunity for this house to study an operating problem of Trans-Canada Air Lines. In that respect the suggestion was made, as an example, that the members of the house should know something of the difficulties that were being encountered because of engine failure of the North Stars. Immediately an attempt was made to create the impression that there was nothing in this suggestion; that it was something that had no place in this house; that it was something that was damaging to Trans-Canada Air Lines even to discuss. I have suggested on other occasions, and I certainly suggest again, that it is just as much the duty of the members of this house to examine the details of operation of that kind as it is their duty to consider the comparative advantages of diesel engines and steam engines, or the comparative advantages of engines of different manufacture, even if they are of the same type. After all, this is a straight business operation. Some lines have power units of different types, and one of the basic considerations in efficiency and cost of operation is the advantage or disadvantage of a particular type of power unit. Aircraft have power units, and it certainly is not merely the right but the duty of members of parliament, who are called upon to authorize this

Canadian National Railways operation by voting financial support, to examine all the essential information in regard to power units or any other aspect of the operation of this transportation service.
This is no sacred cow. This is no subject that is so sacrosanct the members of this house should not even discuss it. On the contrary, it should be a straight business proposition. If the members of this house believe there are certain details about which they should be informed, it is their duty to seek that information in this house from the responsible ministers and those who can give the information.
Last year when I said that certain difficulties were being encountered and that I for one was anxious to see what should be done, there was immediately the suggestion that this was an attempt to discredit Trans-Canada Air Lines. The suggestion that any difficulties were encountered because of engine failure was ridiculed; in fact it was implied that it was much less than an accurate statement-I am using an extremely mild expression when I put it in that way.
Let us see exactly what the facts were that came up for discussion, not in May or June for the first time, but in April while the house was in session. The remarks I made at that time had reference to my knowledge of the difficulties that were being encountered, and I felt it was my duty-I still think it was my duty as it is my duty now-to place all the information I could before the members of this house. It is their responsibility to say what they think should be done in relation to a service for which they must vote the money.
This was an order that was sent out as a flight operation bulletin on February 14 last year. I would remind the members of this house that the subject was under discussion in April of last year. These were the instructions that went to the flight captains of the North Stars on that date-I am reading now from the report of the flight director that was put in evidence in the committee by the officials of Trans-Canada Air Lines:
Subject:	North Star engines.
We are concerned over an increase in the number of engine failures with North Star aircraft.
The situation is being very vigorously campaigned by both the engine manufacturer and ourselves with a view to rectification. As a result, it is anticipated that major sources of trouble such as coolant loss, the SU pump, magnetos, and other items, will be greatly improved in the next two months.
In the meantime, it is desired that you adopt a relatively conservative outlook with respect to flight on three engines, having in mind the weather, availability of usable airports on the route, etc.
That was signed by H. W. Seagrim, director of flight operations. The suggestion that that was something that it was improper to bring up indicates a complete misconception of the responsibility of members of parliament. May


I say this also, that the suggestion-no, I shall go further; the vigorous statement that was made that this had seriously limited the number of passengers on the North Star, was simply not true. Evidence placed before the committee by officials of Trans-Canada Air Lines showed very clearly that from that particular date, far from the number of passengers decreasing, the number of passengers increased to the largest monthly total in the history of the air line.
I am going to place on the record at this point the comparative figures for the months from April to August of 1948 and 1949, to show exactly what happened in those two years. In April, 1948, there were 39,264 revenue passengers flown; in May, 45,636; June, 58,507; July, 55,794; August, 57,135. Now let us take the figure for the same months-


Mr. Howe:: What about September and
October? Have you got those?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, and of course they go
down, as was explained, because of the change in the service in those months. Every year they have gone down in those months in precisely the same way. Those months had nothing whatever to do with the discussion of this particular point. The statement that there had been a serious loss in passenger revenue was made in those months while the figures were going up.
I have given the figures for 1948, and I shall now give the figures for 1949.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that election campaign not
finished yet?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this is a
question of getting before the members of this house for the first time the truth in regard to what actually did take place. At the time the attempt was made to bring the matter before the house it was denied, and the facts were not available. They have become available only within the past few weeks.
Let me give you the figures for 1949, for those same months, remembering that the month of April, while the house was still sitting, was the month in which this came up for discussion, and naturally it was carried by the press throughout the country. In April, 1949, the number of revenue passengers carried was 53,322, as compared with 39,264 in 1948; in May, 58,461, as compared with 45,636 in 1948; in June, 64,458, as compared with 58,507 in 1948; in July, 66,051 as compared with 55,794 in July, 1948; in August, 66,659 as compared with 57,135 in 1948.
What actually happened was that during those months following April, when this matter came up for discussion, there was a

steady increase to the largest figures for passengers carried in the whole history of Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trans-Canada Air Lines
changed the size of the planes in the meantime. You are talking about 40-passenger planes in 1949 as against 21-passenger planes in 1948.


George Alexander Drew: I am afraid that the Minister
of Trade and Commerce must have forgotten that they were talking about North Stars, and that they were never 21-passenger planes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The North Stars did not come on the line until July 1, 1948.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce will continue to make his statements, but everyone here knows that the North Stars have been operating for some time. What I want to point out is this. We were told that there had been a serious drop, and I just ask you, Mr. Chairman, to see where the drop was:	April last year 53,322;
May, 58,461; June, 64,458; July, 66,051; August, 66,659.


An hon. Member:: There is an increase.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, there was a large increase every month, to the highest point in passengers carried in the history of the air lines. The statement that was made, seeking to hide the real facts, had no relation to reality, as the minister knows now, whether he was inaccurately informed at that time or not. Trans-Canada Air Lines did carry out investigations, as the director of flight operations said they were doing. As a result of those investigations there have been many improvements, and the situation has been greatly remedied. As a result of the investigations that have been made, they have improved a number of the features connected with the engines, but they have also discovered other things as well. This is the kind of thing that is an essential part of the understanding of the operation of this system.
On November 10, 1949, the same director of flight operations sent the following bulletin to every flight captain on the North Stars, and this represents the result of part of that inquiry:
Outlined below are certain amendments to the operating limitations and procedures for the Rolls Royce 622 and 624 engines to become effective immediately upon receipt of this bulletin.
1.	"Full Hot" induction heat is to be used on takeoff at ground outside air temperatures below 0 degrees C. This supersedes the present instructions on page 269 of the airplane operating manual specifying an outside air temperature of minus 10 degrees C.
2.	The normal climb power settings will continue to be 2650 rpm and 48" hg. If, however, additional climb power is required the rpm's should immediately be increased to 2850. The manifold pressure
Canadian National Railways
with 2850 rpm may be set at 48" hg or any setting in between this figure and 58 4" hg, the latter to be considered maximum and to be used only when necessary to obtain aircraft performance under adverse conditions.
3.	The maximum allowable cruise power is to be reduced from 1000 bhp to 900 bhp/engine.
4.	Pending completion of bearing modifications to the rear engine case, it is desirable that operations be conducted within the M.S. range as much as practicable to avoid the higher bearing speeds in F.S. gear.
H. W. Seagrim,
Director of flight operations
That represented the very kind of examination of the situation which was called for and about which the members should know something in ordinary simple language. This last order was simply an order that the machines were to be operated at a medium speed instead of at a fast speed, in order to avoid burning out the roller bearings which were then being modified, and those modifications are proceeding. Those are the very things that are an essential part of any effective consideration of the power units of these machines.
These changes are being considered all the time. That was exactly what was in mind when it was suggested that the possibility of improvement in the operating costs of Trans-Canada Air Lines should be fully explored. At a time when this parliament is being asked to vote the money to make up whatever deficit will be called for this coming year, there certainly should be in the minds of the members the necessity for the full examination of every practical economy, every way of reducing operating costs, and every way of increasing efficiency.
A few minutes ago the minister, in regard to these items which are all business details, tried to create the impression that this is the rehashing of an old issue. It is a straight business operation, and these facts are available for the first time to the members of this committee, as a result of this inquiry. But it is of course true that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a casual way of dealing with many of these things. It is for that very reason that hon. members should insist that there be a careful examination of all these items.
Let me give a typical example; and I quote from page 402 of the minutes and proceedings of the committee on railways and shipping. Certain aspects of this operation were under discussion, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke about the way in which this service was building up. As reported at page 402, this is what took place:


Mr. Fulton:: But that is not what you said last
year.


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: Oh. I am not at all interested in what I said last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I am.

Canadian National Railways


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: Then I will let you quote it and I will not worry about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are a responsible minister and
I would be interested in your comments and remarks which you made last year, when you said: "I won't operate an air line very long which is in red ink."


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: But I did not specify what "very long" means. Perhaps it means two or three years. Perhaps it means another five years.
He might have gone on and said: Perhaps it means anything I like it to mean in the years ahead.
After all, this is a big business operation. The members of this committee have a right to rely on the statements that are made; and the statements that are made, as a matter of fact, are statements which should be subject to any reasonable explanation. In regard to other things we have had very touching statements about the complete confidence of certain members in any statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In discussing this matter it is therefore of interest that the minister sums up his own attitude in these words: "I am not at all interested in what I said last year".
In this particular case we should be interested in the basis on which this operation began. It was to be an operation that would maintain itself. It was to be an operation that would gradually work into a surplus position, and it did. That surplus has been used up. There are now substantial deficits, and that picture has changed. The members here have a right and a duty to know that every possible thing is being done to practise such economies as can be satisfactorily put into effect, and to meet every situation in exactly the same way as would be done by a sound business operation.
In the earlier part of the discussion of this bill the Minister of Finance said that he was not quite prepared to entrust all matters to parliament; and that may be-


Douglas Charles Abbott: What?


George Alexander Drew: Yes; he said that he was not
quite prepared to entrust all matters to parliament. [DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not recall using that phrase.


George Alexander Drew: I think Hansard will show it
quite clearly. I am not suggesting that there was anything improper in that. It was said at the time of the discussion of certain details about which the minister was not informed at the time. What we must recognize from all this is that there is certainly no intention of entrusting all matters to parliament in dealing with a subject of this kind, and that the committee by a majority, and a small majority in most of these cases, refused to make recommendations which would have brought


before parliament an opportunity to say that this should be dealt with in a businesslike way. For that reason we have not these recommendations before us; and since there is no motion for the approval of the report, the matter stands there and apparently will stand there until the end of the session.
But this whole situation is one which surely suggests the desirability of bringing the operation of these two services under the same minister, whoever he may be, because there are officers of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines holding similar positions in these two organizations. Therefore it seems to me that sound methods and practices would suggest that the administrative responsibility be in the same department.
This great organization, Mr. Chairman, is performing a fine service. Trans-Canada Air Lines have a magnificent record. They have a fine record of safety. We have the finest pilots, the finest aircrew and the finest ground crew to be found anywhere in the world. There is no reason why we should not see Canadian air lines extending to all the great airports of the world. But the way that that picture can become a reality, the way that our great pool of trained pilots and technicians can find the opportunity to expand these services is by applying the very highest business standards to the operation of this system and bringing before parliament the details which make it possible for parliament to understand the problem and to urge those things which will assist in the expansion and improvement of this great transportation service.
There is, however, this to remember. While we have not an opportunity of breaking down the point at which these deficits arise, presumably the carriage of freight and the carriage of mail are on a satisfactory basis. We were told that a higher figure was being asked for the carriage of mail, and it was believed that the amount now being received did actually take care of the costs. If that is so, then we should examine what this deficit means in terms of passengers.
The deficit last year was $4,317,593.16. The revenue passengers carried were 648,574. This means that the taxpayers of Canada paid $6.65 out of their pockets for every passenger carried on these air lines. That may be satisfactory; it may not. But these things should be considered in the knowledge of the facts; and as this house gives approval, it means not merely that there is permissive authority to place before the house an item for approval, but that this house shall by subsequent parliamentary vote take care of the deficit according to the terms of section 10. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the most

we can do on this occasion is to believe that statements made a year ago as statements of fact are intended to be taken seriously; that statements we receive at any time are intended to be taken seriously, and, above all, that in the operation of this line between now and the end of the year the Minister of Finance will take such steps as he can-and after all, as the Minister of Finance he has a substantial measure of control over financial matters-to see that everything possible is done to give this system the advantage of an examination of its cost methods and other details which will put it in the very best possible position.
I would just like to tell hon. members that the committee did not have before it all the information which it should have had. Motions were made to bring before that committee the director of flight operations, the director of technical services, the deputy postmaster general, and others who could have talked on some of these details. By a majority supporting the government these requests were voted down, and therefore we did not have before us the men with the technical knowledge of the various problems. Nevertheless without that information we have the facts before us, and I hope that the Minister of Finance, even in the absence of any recommendations of this kind, will insist upon steps which would be insisted upon by any great business organization.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, on this bill which provides for the capital financing of the Canadian National Railways we have listened to a minority report of the committee on railways and shipping. My hon. friend is a member of that committee. If he wished to make that minority report he could very well have moved concurrence in the majority report. It seems to me that that would be the proper way-


George Alexander Drew: You cannot do that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that to accept as authoritative his remarks as to the findings of the committee which examined the operation of the T.C.A. would lead his listeners to a very wrong conclusion as to its deliberations.
First, the hon. member suggested that the accounts of the air lines should be set up to reflect past deficits. That matter was settled back in 1933 by action of parliament, which approved a recommendation of a royal commission set up to examine the operation of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways. The report of that royal commission resulted in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, which provided that deficits of the railways should be paid by parliament and not carried forward in railway accounts. That has been done
Canadian National Railways since 1933, and I think no one will find from the railway accounts that the deficits of the Canadian National Railways have been carried forward in the manner suggested by the leader of the opposition. Doing so might be a very good way to cast discredit on the air lines, but I see no reason why a practice that has been established since 1933 should be changed simply for that purpose. Certainly it would serve no other purpose.
The suggestion was made that separate accounting be provided for every route flown by the air lines. That was discussed in the committee. The comptroller of the Canadian National Railways, who is also comptroller of Trans-Canada Air Lines, explained that that procedure is not proper transportation accounting; that it was not the practice to make a separation of that kind in any transportation system with which he is acquainted. The president of Trans-Canada Air Lines pointed out that the cost of that type of accounting would be enormous, greatly exceeding the cost of accounting at present carried on; and that the results when obtained would be perfectly useless to the management. He pointed out that although a particular route may not be profitable in itself, it might very well be found profitable when its contribution to traffic on other routes is taken into consideration. And he pointed out that no system of accounting could give due weight to such intangible return from the route solely from accounting records.
Those matters were dealt with by the management in committee, and dealt with by the committee; and the committee decided -as I remember it, by an overwhelming vote-that the present accounting practice should not be changed.
The leader of the opposition speaks of operating costs being fully explored. I can assure him that the management of the air line gives its best attention to the exploring of operating costs. The whole operation of the air lines is concentrated on fighting operating costs, and I doubt very much if this parliament can give much leadership in that detailed operation.
Then he suggested that the operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines should be placed under a different ministry. The minister who holds that responsibility at the moment is the minister who recommended that there be a Trans-Canada Air Lines and recommended the steps that led to its formation. He has been in charge of the policy of Trans-Canada Air Lines since its inception.
My hon. friend complained about the rate of growth of the air lines. He said T.C.A. should be serving every capital of the world.
3802	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways The figures he quoted indicated, in the report of the air lines for 1941, a gross of about $5 million. I might point out that T.C.A. in 1949, which is eight years later, grossed in the vicinity of $40 million, and in 1950 will gross a substantially higher figure. If that does not indicate that the air line is growing, then I can think of no argument to use in that connection.
Then the hon. gentleman returned to his old friend, the engine of the North Star aeroplane. We threshed that subject out during the election campaign of 1949. It was referred to by the leader of the opposition on every platform on which he spoke from Halifax to Vancouver. He has said there was no falling off in traffic on account of his public statements. But that is not the view of the management. It was not the view expressed by the president of the air lines in his evidence before the committee on railways and shipping.


George Alexander Drew: They are figures which you cannot escape.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The figures which the leader of the opposition quoted for May and June, 1948, referred to traffic when the sole equipment of the air lines was the DC-3 plane holding twenty-one passengers. He then compares that with the traffic figures for the next year when the line was equipped with the North Star plane carrying forty passengers.


George Alexander Drew: They were increasing each month, the last months of last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so, but he is comparing totally different equipment when he speaks of the early months of 1948 and the corresponding months in 1949.
It has been suggested that every detail of engine trouble should be discussed in this House of Commons. The suggestion is that any member of the opposition who has ridden in the back seat of an aeroplane is competent to advise the operating officers of the air lines as to what to do about their engine troubles. Has anything more absurd ever been suggested in this House of Commons?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is your statement, not
ours.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have operating officials who have spent practically all their working experience in dealing with aeroplane engines, and who have knowledge of the matter obtained from the engine builders. They know the details of the engine with which they are dealing. They are thoroughly familiar with the problem. The suggestion is that by discussions in the House of Commons and through recommendations from members of
[Mr. Howe.l

the House of Commons opposition-who are the only members of the house who feature that type of discussion-the work of these engineers and mechanics could be greatly facilitated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Nothing like that was said. To suggest it is utter nonsense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will let my hon. friend make his speech presently. The debate is wide open.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is my contribution.


George Alexander Drew: You would not let the officers give evidence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is one to say to a man who says he is not responsible for what he has said?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You can refer to that remark; but I am putting my statement together as I follow the points brought forward by your leader. The point is this. The public wish to be assured that they are riding in an aeroplane which is operating safely. That is their only concern. I think that nine passengers out of ten who ride the air lines would be surprised to learn that aircraft engines ever fail. They would be shocked if they knew otherwise. I have been travelling in aeroplanes as much as any member of the house perhaps and I have known an engine to fail only once, and that was a Pratt and Whitney engine installed in a DC-3. I did not like it. That was my experience, and I think it was exceptional. Only very few travellers on the air lines have ever seen any engine failure. Those who are responsible for the operation of the air line are aware that the operators of the aircraft have taken precautions against the failure of an engine. They know they are not asking the public to ride in aircraft in the operation of which there is any possible lack of safety.
Why the public should now be asked to go into all the details as to why engines have failed I cannot imagine at this time. I never have been able to understand the value of that type of publicity, or that kind of public discussion by public men of this country. Every new type of engine has its troubles when it is first put into service. The engine used in the North Star was a new type of engine in respect of a number of its accessories.. Trouble was experienced, but that trouble was remedied as quickly as possible. Today the engine used in the North Star aircraft has a record of reliability that is not surpassed by any engine in any aircraft operating in any part of the world. Not only is that statistically true; it is known to the

operators of aircraft in every part of the world, who would be glad to testify to the correctness of what I am saying.
Referring to the remark by the leader of the opposition that there was nothing personal in his reference to the change of minister, which I do not accept because I think it is wholly personal-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I would point out, and the record will show it, that what I said was that it should be under one minister, whoever that, minister is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The leader of the opposition also pointed out that it should be the minister who is administering the air regulations and also the Canadian National Railways. That cannot be arranged except by direction of the Prime Minister. In case my hon. friend has overlooked it, I would point out that that is a matter to be determined by the Prime Minister. I doubt if my hon. friend has any duty to recommend the change until he becomes prime minister, and perhaps at that time I shall not be very much interested in whether or not there is an air line.


An hon. Member:: You will be flying with wings.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be flying with wings. However, there is an advantage in not having the minister who administers the air regulations responsible for Trans-Canada Air Lines. I so state out of my own experience, because I used to be the minister who administered both at the one time. When a minister is asked by his officials to change the air regulations he is bound to think of the effect on the T.C.A., and the fact that he is responsible for the T.C.A. is likely to warp his judgment as to what should be done in the overall interest. I am giving this testimony from my own experience, that I think it is preferable to have the air regulations administered by one minister and the affairs of T.C.A. administered by another minister. In that way the minister representing the T.C.A. can put his case to his colleague just as any private air line can put their case to that same minister. That is the other side of the question.
But again I say that the question who will be responsible for the T.C.A. is of concern to no one except the Prime Minister. I think he can be trusted to exercise his judgment in that regard without advice from those who have neither the experience nor the position to entitle them to give that advice. I did not intend to speak at length on this subject, as I think this whole discussion is
Insurance Companies
inappropriate on the particular bill in connection with which it is being brought up. I shall not trespass further on my colleague the Minister of Finance.


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


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 269, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Policy in Canada.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should
remind hon. members that this bill was considered carefully in the banking and commerce committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the other day the minister gave a fairly lengthy account of the purposes of this bill and, as the chairman has said, it has been before the banking and commerce committee. It is in that light that we consider the section. I think the minister will agree that it was considered fully and in addition it might be mentioned that it comes before the committee with the imprimatur of the department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for his statement. The bill has been carefully considered by the banking and commerce committee. The sections are rather technical and I think, unless some hon. member has a question to ask about a special section, it would not be inappropriate to pass the sections quickly. I do not think we need consider that we would be derelict in our duty if we did not in committee of the whole give a detailed consideration to the section because this is a case in which that function can in my judgment be properly delegated to a committee like the banking and commerce committee.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister will admit that there is some merit in committees.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I admit fully that for certain purposes that is so. I have always stated that for certain purposes committees are invaluable and that is why we have always had committees in parliament. But in my opinion general questions of policy should not be referred to committees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Insurance Companies
On section 9-Investment of company's funds.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is an important clause and I wonder if the minister could make a brief statement which I think would be of interest to hon. members.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This section amends section 60 of the act which is the main investment section. The revision that has been made is fairly extensive. I outlined this in my preliminary statement the other day. The investment powers are being extended to what are known as lease real estate agreements and to equipment trust agreements outside Canada: there is a modifying of the requirements with respect to investment in debentures; there is an extension of the investment power to cover debentures issued by public bodies such as the harbours board and the like and also applying what is known as the amortization principle of valuation to the securities of the Dominion of Canada and any province of Canada, or of the United Kingdom or the United States.
Briefly those are the changes provided by this section. My understanding is that a detailed explanation of the changes was given by the superintendent to the banking and commerce committee and for that reason I assume the committee will not want me to make a more extensive explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 42 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 268, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is my understanding that this bill also has been carefully considered in the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is similar to the other bill. This is the bill relating to foreign insurance companies as opposed to British and Canadian companies under the other bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 22 inclusive agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported^ read the third time and passed.


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 303, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.


Mr. Green:: Could we have a statement by the minister?


Lionel Chevrier: The most important part of this bill deals with amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which are required in order to implement the international convention for the safety of life at sea, 1948, signed at London on June 10, 1948. The convention was signed by two of the Canadian delegates subject to acceptance, and the government proposes to accept the convention if and when parliament enacts the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act contained in this bill.
It will be recalled that the safety convention of 1929 was made part of the law of Canada by the Safety of Life at Sea and Load Line Conventions Act of 1931. Subsequently, when the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, was passed, the safety convention was incorporated in that act as schedule 4, and the provisions of the act contain frequent references to the provisions of the 1929 convention. Consequently it is necessary to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, in order to bring the provisions of that act in line with the new convention.
The safety convention of 1948 consists of fifteen articles. It is accompanied by six chapters of technical regulations which are difficult to paraphrase or summarize without affecting their significance. However, I shall endeavour to indicate in a general way the directions in which they differ from the 1929 convention. The convention itself has chiefly to do with the contractual relations between the governments which are parties to it. Throughout this convention the concept that there will come into being a permanent international wartime organization is followed. Article I contains the contract between governments to give effect to the convention by any necessary national action. Article II sets forth the ships to which the convention applies. Article III provides for an interchange of information between governments, and article IV deals with cases of force majeure. In general these articles differ little from the 1929 convention.

Articles V and VI contain provisions for deviation from the requirements of the convention in cases of emergency. Article VII abrogates the 1929 convention as between contracting governments.
Article IX provides for future amendments of the convention or of the regulations. All proposals for amendments submitted by member governments go to the maritime safety committee of the permanent international maritime organization known as the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization familiarly called IMCO, and are communicated by that organization to all contracting governments for their consideration at least six months before they are considered by the assembly. The assembly provided for in the IMCO convention is a meeting of representatives of the various member states, in effect an international diplomatic conference, meeting at fixed intervals of two years. These biennial meetings of the assembly afford a means of adopting needed amendments without long intervals, as in the case of ad hoc conferences. It should be noted that article IX differs from the 1929 provisions regarding amendments by requiring a screening by the maritime safety committee of IMCO; by requiring circulation at least six months in advance of consideration; by permitting consideration only at biennial meetings of the assembly, and by requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the assembly and of the maritime safety committee. There is a specific prohibition against making structural amendments retroactive. Generally speaking, article IX provides such machinery for the amendment of the convention as may be desirable, but surrounds such machinery with safeguards against hasty or ill-considered changes. A provision in article XV permits a conference to be called for amending the convention if IMCO is not in force.
Article XI provides that the convention is to come into force on January 1, 1951, if by January 1, 1950, fifteen governments, including at least seven governments having not less than one million gross tons of shipping have accepted it.


Howard Charles Green: Has that happened?


Lionel Chevrier: No, as I will indicate in just a moment. Otherwise it will come into force one year after such fifteen governments have deposited their acceptances. At the present time-and now I deal with the question of the hon. member-I am advised that the convention has been accepted by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the French republic, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden. But as not enough acceptances were deposited before January 1, 1950, the convention will not come into force
Canada Shipping Act
on January 1, 1951. It will not come into force until accepted by fifteen governments.
I shall deal now with the chapters in the various regulations. Chapter I of the regulations contains general provisions as to their application. Unless expressly provided otherwise, the regulations apply only to ships engaged on international voyages. Regulation 3 excepts certain classes of ships such as troopships, warships, cargo ships of less than 500 tons gross, ships not propelled by mechanical means, yachts and fishing vessels. In addition, special exemption is given to vessels solely navigating the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river as far east as Montreal.
Regulations 6 to 19 inclusive of chapter I provide for the inspection and survey of ships subject to the convention, and for the issue and acceptance of certificates. These fourteen regulations follow generally the pattern laid down in the 1929 convention, but additional certificates have been provided to take care of new requirements. Regulation 20 has no counterpart in the 1929 convention. It specifically requires each government to conduct an investigation of any major marine casualty and to supply IMCO with pertinent information concerning such casualties, particularly where such information bears upon the operation of the regulations. This provision should result in the accumulation in a central body of valuable data for use in considering future amendments to the regulations.
Chapter II deals with the construction of ships from the safety standpoint, with special regard to the prevention or mitigation of casualties. New provisions are contained in this chapter requiring that a vessel shall have adequate stability when in a damaged condition. The convention considerably exceeds that of 1929 in its requirements for protection against fire. It authorizes three alternative approaches to the problem. The first is the essentially incombustible ship; the second depends upon an automatic sprinkler installation; and the third requires the extensive use of fire-retardant bulkheads together with the installation of an automatic fire-detection system. The adoption of regulations setting forth definite requirements for protection against fire is one of the outstanding features of the convention.
Basic regulations are included dealing with those electrical installations on passenger ships which are essential for safety. This subject was not dealt with in 1929, but the increased use of electricity since that time made its consideration imperative. In the

Canada Shipping Act
1929 convention it was provided that passenger ships should be inclined upon their completion, and the elements of their stability be made known to their operating personnel. The new convention extends this requirement to cargo ships of 500 gross tons and upwards. The convention also makes provision for fire-extinguishing appliances on cargo ships of 1,000 gross tons and upwards. The previous convention dealt in this respect with passenger ships only.
Chapter III deals with life-saving appliances and emergency musters and drills. A most important advance beyond the 1929 standards in this direction is the extension of many requirements to cargo ships of 500 tons and upwards. The definition of "short international voyage" is rewritten to include both length of voyage and distance off shore, and a measure of increased boatage is required for ships on such voyages.
Lifeboat equipment requirements have been increased in the light of lessons learned in the war. All lifeboats are required to be lifeboats of class I, and mechanical davits are required on ships over 150 feet in length.
All ships are required to carry means for making distress signals by day or night, and the line-throwing apparatus must now be capable of attaining a minimum range of 250 yards. The requirements as to musters and drills on board ship are increased, and in certain directions are made applicable to cargo ships.
Chapter IV covers radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony. This chapter requires cargo vessels of 500 gross tons and over, but under 1,600 gross tons, to be equipped with a radiotelephone installation if not fitted with a radiotelegraph installation. In the 1929 convention the minimum limit on cargo vessels was 1,600 gross tons, and there was then, and is now, no radiotelephone alternative for these larger ships. Chapter IV further provides for a greater degree of flexibility in permitting exemption from radio in that the exemption is not necessarily related to specific mileage, may be partial or conditional, and must take into account the various conditions surrounding the particular voyage.
The requirements of this chapter as to listening on distress frequencies, except for cargo ships of less than 1,600 gross tons, involve advances as to the hours of operatorlistening, and as to the installation and operation of auto alarms. The new provisions substantially increase the possibility of distress messages being promptly picked up by ship stations. The technical requirements as to radiotelegraph installations both on board

ship and for use in lifeboats represent a substantial advance over those contained in the 1929 convention.
The necessary changes in the requirements as to surveys and as to certificates have been made to suit the new provisions. A certificate called a safety radiotelephony certificate is established to cover the small cargo craft and conditionally exempted ships equipped with radiotelephone only. Provisions have been made so that the distress frequencies, to which reference is made in the new convention, shall follow any future requirements adopted by the international telecommunication union.
Chapter V deals with safety of navigation, under which broad term a number of requirements chiefly of an operational nature are included. The chapter generally applies to all ships on all voyages, including those specifically excepted by chapter I, saving only ships of war.
The provisions in regard to meteorological services have been rearranged and expanded to take into account the recommendations of the international meteorological organization.
The procedures covered by article 45 of the 1929 convention relating to distress messages have been modified to take into account the increased range of marine radio installations, and to extend rescue provisions to aircraft or survival craft. The proposed regulations adequately provide for the securing of assistance from other vessels, but are designed to avoid interfering unduly with ships not needed for the rendering of assistance. The requirement of direction finders on board ship has been extended to all ships of 1,600 gross tons and upwards, as compared to passenger ships only of 5,000 gross tons and upwards required by the 1929 convention. This requirement may be deferred for two years from the date the new convention comes into force. Exemption may be allowed in the case of vessels operating in regions where there are few or no radio beacons, but the value of the direction finders from the rescue standpoint must be taken into account. In this connection a new regulation requires governments to set up such aids to navigation, including electronic aids, as the volume of traffic along their coasts and the degree of risk demand. Similarly, a new regulation requires each government to maintain adequate rescue equipment along its coasts.
Another new regulation provides for a simplified and efficient system of signals between a stranded vessel and a rescue party on shore. This system is easily understood, and involves no elaborate equipment on the

vessel. A regulation covering safe pilot ladders is included to make the boarding of ships in open waters less hazardous.
Chapter VI deals with the carriage of dangerous cargoes, that is to say cargoes which are dangerous either from their inherent nature or from their liability to shift at sea. Specifically, the subject of grain cargoes is dealt with in some detail, and requirements for adequate shifting boards are provided. There are now in force in Canada regulations, made under the Canada Shipping Act, covering the carriage of dangerous goods and regulations covering the stowage of grain cargoes. I think I may say that all the changes made in the new convention are in the direction of increased safety and take into account the advances made in ship construction and seamanship since 1929.
There are other provisions in the bill, apart from the safety convention, which the government considers it advisable to enact at this time. I should like to deal briefly with those now.
For some years there has been a feeling in this country that a ship registered in Canada should be described in the act as a Canadian ship. Our ships are known on the seas and lakes as Canadian ships, and fly the national colours of Canada. It is out of date to use the cumbersome expression- "British ship registered in Canada", or "ship registered in Canada," and to bring the act in line with modern usage the bill provides that the expression "Canadian ship" will be substituted for the expressions "ship registered in Canada" and "British ship registered in Canada", wherever these latter expressions occur. At the same time Canadian ships will retain their status as British ships and continue to enjoy the rights and privileges usually accorded to British ships on the high seas and in all ports of the world. The change is one of terminology and does not affect the legal status of ships of Canadian registry. It should commend itself to all members interested in Canadian shipping.
There are amendments designed to enable Canadian consular officers, wherever possible, to take over duties and responsibilities now performed by British consular officers in connection with Canadian ships and seamen. At ports where there are no Canadian consular officers the British consular officers will continue to act for Canada under arrangements made with the United Kingdom government.
There are also amendments concerning the licensing requirements of small craft under ten tons registered tonnage. At present these small vessels are not required to be registered but under section 107 of the act ships
Canada Shipping Act
exempted from the provisions of part I relating to measurement and registration are required to take a licence from a chief officer of customs. The licensing requirements cover small motorboats and pleasure craft owned by Canadians but do not cover small craft owned by aliens. There are many such vessels maintained in Canada by United States citizens who have summer residences in this country, and it is desirable to have these motorboats and yachts licensed and marked for identification purposes so that in case of accident the owner can be easily located.
There is also a problem connected with small boats equipped with outboard motors which under a strict interpretation of the act are required to be licensed.
The bill provides that the governor in council may make regulations respecting the licensing for identification purposes of small vessels under ten tons registered tonnage maintained in Canada by aliens; the licensing of vessels equipped with outboard motors; the marking of licensed vessels; the exemption from the licensing requirements of certain vessels to take care of special cases; and the imposition of a penalty for failure to license and mark. In view of the increasing navigational hazards caused by small craft and the extensive use made of these vessels in different waters, it is considered advisable to deal with the problem by regulation rather than by statutory provision.
Representations have been made that parliament should enact a motorboat act along the lines of the motorboat act of the United States which applies to motorboats and certain other vessels not more than 65 feet in length. While this suggestion is receiving the attention of the officers of my department, the government does not propose, at this time, to introduce a bill covering the whole field of motorboat regulation. There is, however, provision in the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act to permit the issuance of temporary certificates as master to persons qualified to take charge of motor vessels, not exceeding 65 feet in length, carrying passengers in an open cockpit, or in a cockpit which is covered by a light trunk cabin, and plying on the inland or minor waters of Canada within specified limits. This will permit the operation of large motorboats carrying passengers, such as the well-known tour boats in the waters of the Thousand islands, where the operators have local knowledge of the waters but do not hold a regular certificate as master or mate for inland or minor waters.
There are other miscellaneous amendments contained in the bill including amendments relating to the pilotage service and other matters which I do not propose to explain in

Canada Shipping Act
detail. These amendments have been recommended by my officers, who are familiar with the workings of the act, and are considered to be in the interests of the shipping industry. After the discussion of this bill has been terminated, I propose to move that it be sent to a committee for study. While the bill appears to be fairly lengthy on the surface, as hon. members who have it with them will observe, there are but sixty-three sections. The rest of it deals with the articles, the chapters, and the regulations, pretty much in the same fashion as did the safety of life at sea convention, 1929. That convention was approved by the house and was later made a part of the Canada Shipping Act. The same procedure is being sought at this time and I propose at a later stage to move that the act be sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for study.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this bill is to be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines there is no need for me to say much about it today. I hope, however, that in that committee it will be possible for us to get a detailed explanation of the various sections of the bill and also of the provisions of the international convention. As we all know the session is drawing to an end, and at this particular stage in a session it is always difficult to give careful consideration to any measure, i hope the minister will arrange to have his officials present before the committee and that we shall be given every facility for getting a thorough understanding of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I give that assurance now.


Howard Charles Green: As I see it, there is little that is controversial about the bill but there are details which are of some importance, particularly to those Canadians who live on the St. Lawrence river, on the Atlantic coast or on the Pacific coast. I also hope that the opportunity will be given to such bodies as the labour unions, the shipping people, and the shipbuilding people to have representatives appear before this committee should they wish to do so. I should also like to ask that the radio operators be permitted to make representations before the committee. I know that on the Pacific coast they are much concerned about a trend toward cutting down the use of radiotelegraphy and replacing it by the radiotelephone. That is something that has given a good deal of concern to these radio operators and also to many of the general public who are interested in the safety of ships. The shipping companies of course look at the question more from the point of view of cutting down expenses, and I presume they would be in favour of having more radio-

telephones and fewer radiotelegraphers. But the question of safety of life is directly involved in the question, and I trust that it will be possible to hear representations from both sides, if they wish to appear.
It may also be wise to have representations from the pilots of Canada. I do not know to what extent they are worried about the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which affect them; but if they are concerned about any of these amendments, they should be given the opportunity to appear before the committee.
The minister has said that once this bill has been passed by the house, Canada will accept officially the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The terms of that convention are a schedule to this particular bill, and I take it that the committee will be considering that convention in the same way that the committee on external affairs, a few days ago, considered the convention setting up the international meteorological organization. The minister did not say whether he is entrusting the job of going into the details of this particular international convention to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines or whether he will ask that it be done by the external affairs committee. In my opinion it would be much more suitable in this case to use the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: At the conclusion of my remarks I said it was my intention to move that this be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Howard Charles Green: The minister also said that after this bill is passed he will ask the house to authorize the government to accept the international convention, which I presume will be done by a subsequent motion. I take it there will be no need to refer this particular convention to the committee on external affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: It should be pointed out that the international convention for the safety of life at sea does not apply to shipping on the great lakes. The minister will correct me if I am wrong; as I understand it, that shipping is excepted from the provisions of the convention.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: So that it will apply only to shipping on both coasts. Then again I believe it does not apply to coastal shipping but only to the shipping from one country to another; so that any changes to be made in our coastal shipping laws will have to be considered quite apart from the international convention.

In the bill I notice that there are some changes in the provisions which apply to coastal shipping, but many situations are not being dealt with. For example, take that very question of radio telegraph and radio telephones. I can find no provision in this amending bill which deals with that situation in so far as ships engaged in the coastal trade are concerned. Of course it is on those ships that the problem has arisen. I would hope that amendments could be made to the Canada Shipping Act to deal with that particular problem on the coastal ships.
There is just one other point. It has to do with the licensing of outboard motors. I am afraid that if the minister is going to insist on licensing all the outboard motors in Canada he will have to set up a sea police. Certainly he will be interfering with thousands and thousands of people operating these small boats, most of them pleasure craft. Not only will they be on the sea coast and on the great lakes, but they will be on hundreds of lakes in Canada. I would hope that he is not going to have a gestapo running around from lake to lake seeing that everybody with an outboard motor on a canoe has a licence. Perhaps he has no intention whatever of doing that; but I do point out to him that the bill appears to go very far. The regulations for the licensing of outboard motors should be restricted to those vessels which are being operated where there is shipping and where there could be some confusion.
He said that there had been thought of the government bringing in a motorboat act to deal with motorboats all over Canada. This is the first time I have heard of any measure of that kind being under contemplation. It may be necessary, but it would seem to me to be interfering with provincial jurisdictions, and again to be making a great deal of trouble for the minister which he could avoid without harming the interests of the Canadian people. However, we will not have to solve that problem during the present session.
I can assure the minister that members of the official opposition who are on the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines will attend the sittings with the sole intent of helping to give careful consideration to the international convention and also to the amendments to the shipping act. I do not think there is any reason for political controversy, but we shall require thorough explanations and a reasonable amount of time in order to go into all the details.


Clarence Gillis: shall detain the house just about a minute.
Canada Shipping Act
Had the minister not made the statement that this bill of 150 pages is going to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I would have a lot to say. I listened to the minister carefully when he made this statement. With some of it I agree; with a lot of it I disagree.
I have read the bill, but I cannot say that I fully understand it. I do know that the principle of the bill, namely, amendment of the Canada Shipping Act, is something that is long overdue. I am glad that the minister has got around to it. I am going to reserve whatever comments I have until the committee sits and we have someone before it who is in a position to explain the technical changes that will be brought about in the industry because of the suggested amendments.
I just want to emphasize something that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) had to say. In addition to the experts from the minister's department I suggest it would be well to have someone from the industry as well, because a lot of changes that are suggested in the amendments are going to affect the industry. I want to leave that thought with the minister. If he does not call them the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will very likely do so with my co-operation.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: 1
shall be only two or three minutes. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) has come over to warn me that I should say nothing at all, but I am going to say a few words regardless of what he says.
I am very pleased to see this bill introduced. It is a very technical bill from the standpoint of a layman. One who has not had great experience on the sea is not in a position to say much about a bill such as this until he has had the opportunity to hear the sections explained before the committee by the officials.
I am glad to hear the minister say that he proposes to have this bill go before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I support the proposal made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that representatives of unions and representatives of the radio operators have an opportunity to present their point of view before that committee. Representations enough have been made in that direction, and there is enough evidence being gathered to warrant the committee hearing the point of view of these people on such a very important question.
I would say this to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who was a bit concerned as to whether it was going to license outboard

Dominion Elections Act motors and things of that sort. From my personal experience I have a great respect for the steamship inspectors of the minister's department. I have had occasion to know them throughout the years in connection with interior services, and I have found them very thorough-going and practical men indeed. Without reading the bill I would suggest that if it is drafted as a result of advice received from a number of the past captains of the navy and the merchant marine in the minister's department, based on their theoretical knowledge and experience, it will be a very practical bill. Not much will be found wrong with it; but if it is passed on the advice of people without sea experience we might find many loopholes in it. I would say, in connection with the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that with respect to the motor boat question I have found from practical experience that if one does not wish to be bothered by steamboat inspection he builds his boat one hundred pounds under inspection tonnage, and then he is all right.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Hichmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has said that I went over to his seat and asked him not to speak. That is not entirely correct. I noticed he was making some motions toward me and, not being sure what he meant, I went over to ask him in a courteous way. The hon. member asked me whether the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) was going to speak, and I said I did not know. In a jocular manner I asked him if he was going to speak, and that I hoped he would not. I still wish he had not.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is the minister prepared to do anything about outboard motors? I hope he can put silencers on them.


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


Frederick Gordon Bradley: the second reading of Bill No. 311, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.


George Alexander Drew: Would the minister give a general explanation of the bill?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr Speaker, this is a bill to make certain changes in the elections act in accordance with the recommendations of the special committee appointed recently for that purpose.
-
Section 1(1) is for the purpose of extending the franchise to Eskimos by removing them from the exemption in paragraph (e). Section 1(2) of the bill amends paragraph (f) so as to bring the text in line with a later section in the bill and to afford to Indians the opportunity to acquire the vote by waiving their right to exemption from taxation on personal property. This refers to those Indians who ordinarily reside on reserves. Section 1(4) provides for the right of an Indian's wife to vote where the Indian is a veteran of either world war I or world war II.
Section 2 makes provision for a change in the period between nomination day and election day in certain ridings throughout Canada. These are based upon climatic conditions which render it either difficult or in some cases impossible to get the ballot boxes around within fourteen days, the period ordinarily reserved in the act for that purpose.
Section 3 makes provision for the inclusion of Newfoundland in paragraph (c) in cases of appeals from the county court judge, and makes that section apply to Newfoundland as well as to the other provinces therein named.
Section 4 of the bill contains the schedule.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on second reading. As the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) has said, section 2 of the bill adds to the number of constituencies which shall have twenty-eight days between nomination day and polling day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. The hon. member ought not to quote sections of the bill at this stage. That could be done more properly in committee.


William Joseph Browne: I am referring to the principle of extending the time from fourteen to twenty-eight days, and to the number of constituencies in the country affected by the adoption of that principle.
This matter was before the standing committee, and it was pointed out that not all the constituencies in Newfoundland included here need such a long time between nomination day and polling day. It has been represented that it is very difficult for a returning officer to visit his area and to have the ballot boxes distributed in time. However, as I pointed out in committee, under the constitution under which Newfoundland operated between 1832 and 1932, a period of one hundred years, nomination day was only ten' days in advance of polling day. Improvements in transportation methods in the last twenty years should tep.d, not toward an increase but rather toward a shortening of

that time-although ten days would not be sufficient in a federal election where the amount of paraphernalia to be distributed is much greater than it is in a provincial election. Nevertheless, operating on that schedule of ten days between nomination day and polling day I never knew of any serious difficulties in some of the constituencies set out in this bill. I suggest that when we are in committee this matter be considered further.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
Howard Charles Green: I would ask the Secretary of State to explain why this act is not amended to give the vote to the Indians of Canada. In the bill there is a section giving the vote .o Eskimos, but there is still a restriction against the Indians. My understanding is that the Indian does not have a vote unless he signs a waiver of exemption from taxation. In British Columbia the Indians were given the vote last year or the year before, and voted at the last provincial election. As a matter of fact one of them was elected a member of the provincial legislature, and I believe that was the first instance of an Indian being elected to any legislative body in Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: He represented his riding during the recent session at Victoria, and did so with considerable distinction. I believe the time has come to give the vote to Indians in Canada. They have proved that they are well qualified to have that right in British Columbia; and if they are eligible to vote in a provincial election they should also be allowetd to vote in a federal election. I do not understand why there should be any difference. Perhaps the minister could amend the act to provide that where an Indian may vote in a provincial election he shall also be eligible to vote in a dominion election. We had that in reverse before. A Japanese could vote in a dominion election in the rest of Canada, but could not vote in British Columbia because he had no vote provincially. That has now been changed but for many years the law read in the way I have indicated. I urge the minister to give further consideration to this section so that Indians in British Columbia may vote in federal elecions just as they can in the provincial elections. I regret that the Indians from one coast of Canada to the other have not been given the vote, but there is no reason why they should not be given it in British Columbia.
Dominion Elections Act


Frederick Gordon Bradley: One of the bases for granting the franchise is that the holder of it shall be subject to the ordinary taxation laws of the land. That is a principle that goes away back, that there shall be no taxation without representation. The reverse would seem to apply equally strongly, that there shall be no representation without taxation.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: What about the Eskimo?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It would be a curious situation if these people had the full franchise in Canada and yet were exempt from personal property taxes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If the Eskimo has it, why not the Indian? Give us some reason for that. You cannot, of course.


Mr. Gibson:: It seems to me that this bill has been brought in without having received due consideration by the cabinet. I do not think it has been thought out too clearly. This matter was brought up in the Indian affairs committee which has deliberated for two years and I am of the opinion that that committee would not have recommended this course of action if it had been taken into the government's confidence before this legislation was introduced.
I resent, and I am sure the Indians will also, the fact that these people are being placed in a different category from the Eskimo. I think it is an admitted fact that the Indian population is considerably advanced over the Eskimo population. I do not want to be too critical of the government because I am sure they are acting with the best intentions, but I am sure that a great many Indians on the reserves throughout Canada will consider that they are being asked to buy the right to vote. They are being asked to waive their ancient rights of exemption from taxation while living on the Indian reserves.
I realize that perhaps that will have to be eliminated at some time, but I do not think it is right to give the Indian a vote only if he waives that exemption which is his by long usage. We are setting up about five different classes of Indians in connection with voting. There are those who were previously enfranchised through giving up their rights as Indians. Then there are the war veterans and war veterans' wives who have been given the right to vote. Another class is made up of those who have signed waivers. There is still another class of taxpayers and voters, including the veterans, who have not signed waivers.


Mr. Carroll:: Are the Eskimo and the Indian in the same category as far as being a ward of the government is concerned?
3812

Dominion Elections Act


John Lambert Gibson: They are accepted as wards of the government in the estimates of the health and welfare department where they are handled jointly. I am sure the minister who looks after that matter will confirm what I say.


William F. Carroll: The Indians are wards of the government and are supported by the government, and I should like to know whether the Eskimos are in that same category.


John Lambert Gibson: They are definitely wards of the government and have been accepted as such.


Mr. Ward:: I think the hon. member is wrong, the Eskimo is not a ward of the government.


John Lambert Gibson: Maybe we should have a ministerial statement on this.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the minister tell us how many Eskimos in Canada are paying taxes?


Walter Edward Harris: That is not the
problem. The problem is whether the Eskimos are exempt from taxation by statute and the answer is that they are not. But the Indian is exempt from taxation by statute. The Eskimo, not being exempt from taxation, may vote; the Indian, being exempt from taxation by statute, may not vote. This bill provides that he may vote if he waives his exemption.


Arthur Leroy Smith: A nice tricky statute.


Walter Edward Harris: It is not a tricky statute.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Eskimos do not pay any taxes, do they?


Mr. Harkness:: In the Indian Act as we have had it up to the present time the Eskimo is defined as an Indian because it is stated that wherever the word "Indian" appears it shall be taken to apply to the Eskimo. In the bill now before the committee that is not the case. I find it rather difficult to find the distinction that is being drawn.


Walter Edward Harris: There seems to be a misunderstanding about this. The Eskimo, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments, is considered to be an Indian under a decision of the courts, but that does not put him in the position of having the benefits of the Indian Act.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a better explanation because the explanation just given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not answer the question that has been raised in regard

to the situation that will result. I do not think there is any occasion to make a comparison one way or another between the Indian and the Eskimo, but it does seem to me that in this particular case the Eskimo is being treated in a manner that places him in a more favourable position than the Indian.
In this particular case you are imposing certain conditions in regard to the Indian which it seems to me are not in keeping with our attempt to make him a responsible citizen.
I think every step should be taken to give the Indians full rights of citizenship and make them feel that they are citizens of this country in every way. They have demonstrated their capacity to assume responsibility and I do not think they should be dealt with in a manner that seems to separate them from the other people of this country. It seems to me that the right to vote should not be based upon a condition of this kind.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There is no difference in treatment between the Eskimo and the Indian. Some Indians already have the vote. This bill deals with Indians who are ordinarily resident on the reserves and who have certain statutory exemptions from taxation. So far as I know there are no Eskimo reserves. There is no exemption from taxation in favour of the Eskimos, and therefore we propose to give them the full franchise. If an Indian wants the full franchise and is prepared to accept the same conditions under which it is extended to the Eskimos, and to the white men, for that matter, he can have it. It is not relevant to say that the Eskimo does not in fact pay taxes. Even if the Indian will not have to pay taxes, still he must execute the waiver.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Surely this is a lot of legalistic quibbling, and that is all. Leaving out questions of treaty money, reserves and everything else, today we are giving the Eskimos the franchise and refusing it to the Indians.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Some Indians.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The great
majority of them, because they are on reserves. You are giving it to all the Eskimos, you will not give it to all the Indians. Why not? Are they inferior? Are they incapable? If the minister would give us some reason of that kind I might be prepared to accept it. If you are giving it to one class-I was going to say one ethnic group but I will leave that alone, because I do not quite know what it means

why not give it to the other? That is something for which I have not yet heard one sound reason. The only reason advanced is that the Indian on a reserve receives treaty money, and is given certain consideration

when he is old. Why should that have anything to do with whether or not he is allowed to vote? We allow people who receive old age pensions to vote, though in that sense they are receiving money from this government. Let the minister tell me why we should make the franchise general with respect to Eskimos and why it cannot be made general with respect to Indians. Surely it has nothing to do with taxes or anything of the kind. Those are just legalistic reasons. If you are giving it to one of course the sound thing to do is give it to both.


John Lambert Gibson: Following what has been said by the hon. member for Calgary West, there are in my riding very intelligent, hard-working Indians who may pay two or three thousand dollars a year in taxes, but they are not given the right to vote unless they are prepared- to give up some of their ancient rights. Yet we turn around and let an Eskimo vote, though certainly we do not owe him anything more than we owe the Indian, and certainly he does not pay taxes. My tax-paying Indians cannot vote, and I resent it. I believe the government are wrong in bringing down this legislation, and I ask them to reconsider it.


Mr. Ferguson:: This is 1950; we are holding up the torch of democracy, yet we say that men and women who were the original citizens of this country may not have a voice in its government by means of the ballot. If an Indian served his country, he is given the privilege of voting; otherwise he is not. It may be that we will be fortunate enough to have no war for the next ten years; in the meantime these young men, many of whom no doubt would volunteer more readily than some of those who have the privilege of voting, are given no say in the running of the country. If a war should break out and we should call for recruits, however, these young men twenty-three, twenty-five or twenty-seven years of age would step fcjrward the day war was declared and volunteer to defend their country. To one group of Canadian citizens-and there is no doubt that they are Canadian citizens-this government says, "You may have no voice in the conduct of affairs because years ago it was thought advisable not to permit you to vote owing to the fact that you were given certain concessions by the federal government." As the hon. member for Calgary West has said, an old age pensioner receives money from this government, but he has the privilege of voting.
Let us take a step forward in this year 1950 and give every citizen of this country the right to voice his opinion of the government by marking his ballot. Do not ostracize and set apart one group of citizens of whom we should 55946-2411
Dominion Elections Act all be proud. They are Canadians, and good ones. I think it is a disgrace that the Indian is not permitted to vote.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this discussion has not been altogether fair to the committee or to the minister who introduced it. I suggest that as far as Indians are concerned there are two classes of thought in Canada. There are those who would like to see the Indian given the same status, God help him, as the white man at the earliest possible opportunity. On the other hand there are those who would like to see the Indian kept where he is today. In between those two schools of thought is a large section of the population which does not seem to consider the Indians one way or the other. To those who take an active interest in the affairs of the Indians and wish to see their status raised to that of full citizenship as quickly as possible, compatible with the interests of the Indians themselves, I suggest that owing to the circumstances of the past hundred years this cannot be done overnight. I think everyone will admit that we could not just wipe out the Indian Act and everything it implies; so it has to be done gradually. Just because nothing has been done in all the years past is no reason to oppose some action being taken now.
However, the point I wish to make is not concerned with taxation or representation. I suggest that if you are going to throw the vote to anybody just like that, they will treat it with the same degree of respect and consideration with which, unfortunately, it is treated by a great many of us. We are given the vote as a matter of course when we reach the age of twenty-one. The figures in any election will show that in some parts of the country we do not attach much importance to this vote that came to us in that way. I have not the figures, but I would not mind betting-if it were parliamentary to bet- that the percentage of nationalized Canadians who make use of their vote is much higher than that of Canadians by birth. So if we are to give the Indians the vote, and if it is to have any value to them, they must realize that responsibilities go with it; that if they are to acquire the privileges we enjoy as white Canadians they must accept the responsibilities that go with them. Unfortunately for all of us, those responsibilities include the right to pay taxes.
I would not like to see this differentiation with respect to the Indians continue longer than is absolutely necessary. I suggested to some Indian friends of mine some time ago that it might be a good plan to adopt the system followed in New Zealand with respect to the Maoris; that is, give them all the vote and let them elect their own members to

Dominion Elections Act four or six seats. They promptly replied, "That is not what we want. That will perpetuate the discrimination. We want to vote on a par with you". Well, Mr. Chairman, they are not going to vote on a par with us if from the financial aspect we continue to regard them as wards of the country, incapable of paying taxes, which implies the inability to earn a living in competition with the rest of us. I do not think it is fair to the Indians who really want to vote to assume that they would like to take it all on the one hand and assume no responsibility on the other. I would suggest to you that those who would accept the vote, and would take that right without paying their taxes, are perhaps those Indians who have not yet reached a stage of citizenship where they are entitled to vote. It is absolutely unfair to say, as I believe the member for Simcoe North said, that this government is giving the Indian no voice in the affairs of the country. By this act this government is giving to every Indian the opportunity to exercise his voice in the affairs of the country if he wants to do so as a tax-paying citizen. It is a step in the right direction, and I am a bit surprised it has not been accepted in that spirit. I feel confident that the Indians in my district, who are socially far advanced, will put themselves in a position where they can vote and pay taxes.


Mr. Charlton:: The last speaker mentioned the Indians' right to do certain things. The Indians now have the treaty right exempting them from income tax on moneys earned on the reserve.


Walter Edward Harris: No, that is not a fact.


John Alpheus Charlton: How does it happen that they are exempt?


Walter Edward Harris: They are exempt by a statute of parliament, and that is what I was trying to explain to the member for Calgary West.


John Alpheus Charlton: In any event, they are
exempt from the payment of income tax on money earned on the reserve. They have to pay the same taxes as other people on money earned outside the reserve. I do not feel this government is giving the Indian very much by giving him a vote, but at the same time taking away another right which the Indian feels he has earned. He has paid dearly for that right. As the representative of the Six Nations Indian reserve at Brantford, I can say that there are few of those Indians who want to vote. I do not think this government is giving them anything when it gives them the vote but takes away another right. Those

Indians who feel that they should have the vote want that right without any strings attached to it.
The mere fact that the Indian is exempt from the payment of income tax on income earned on the reserve makes very few exempt from that tax. In most cases the money is earned off the reserve. As I said before the Indians pay every other tax we pay when they earn money off the reserve, yet they do not have a vote. Those Indians who served in the armed forces have the vote, and it was only in 1948 that their wives were given the privilege of voting. The government is putting these Indians in a class by themselves, because the Eskimo is being given the vote without any strings attached to it. The Indian is not being given the vote unless he gives up one of those things which he feels he has earned. I think that is unjust. Have the Indians been asked what they think about this? Has this change in the act ever been referred to them?


An hon. Member:: Certainly they have.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the minister answer
that?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I shall when the hon. member has finished.


Mr. Fulford:: There is one question that
bothers me in connection with giving the Indian the right to vote. By treaty the Indians have the right to cross the international boundary without let or hindrance. The Indians at the Caughnawaga reserve near Montreal, and a fine lot of people they are, go all over the United States and Canada building the framework of bridges and skyscrapers. They seem to be singularly free of the fear of great heights. I watched them building the Thousand Islands bridge, running along the catwalk with hundred pound kegs of rivets on their shoulders. They earn fairly satisfactory incomes from this type of work. The question in my mind is, if they accept the vote I assume they get full citizenship, so would they lose the right to cross the international boundary without let or hindrance?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I opened this
discussion and I am going to move an amendment to the act. I move:
That the following be substituted for clauses (2) and (3) of section 1 of bill 311:
(2) Paragraph (f) of subsection 2 of section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, chapter 46 of the statutes of 1938 is repealed.
As I read the act, the result of that amendment would be to give Canadian Indians the vote in general in the same way as the Eskimos are now being given the vote. I think there has been a lot of dodging the

issue here, in some of the remarks made against this measure. I would ask the member for Skeena to explain whether or not he thinks the British Columbia legislature made a mistake in giving the Indians of our province the vote recently? The argument he made would apply to the provincial vote as well as the federal.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Are you asking me?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The answer, of course, is that the Indians are not the wards of the government of British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: That was not the argument that was used by the hon. member in making his speech; he did not even mention that. When we get down to this question of wards we are getting on rather thin ground, because there are a lot of people today who are getting assistance from the dominion government and yet they have the vote. I repeat there is no reason why the Indians of Canada should not be given the vote at this time.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I perhaps did not make the position clear in the short answer I made to the hon. member for Calgary West. The situation in the past has been this, that the Indians hot resident on the reserve could vote at the federal elections. The Indians on the reserve could not vote, except veterans and their wives. We start with that, and go back three or four years to the time when the Indian Act committee was sitting. A great many Indians and Indian organizations appeared before the committee, and discussed the desirability of having all Indians vote in the federal election. My recollection is that there were 74 different representations made by Indian groups, bands or associations. Of the seventy-four, forty-nine said they did not want the vote, and twenty-five said they did. Of course, a number of qualifications were expressed. Some said quite distinctly that they were not citizens of Canada, did not desire to be citizens, and would take no part in the affairs of the country if they were given the opportunity. Others said they might consider becoming citizens and exercising the vote if their treaty rights were upheld. Some were afraid their treaty rights would perhaps not be observed if they were brought under the ordinary rules which apply to all of us.
It must be remembered that the Indian Act, in order to protect the Indian from, shall we say, economic distress in the early days, has always exempted the Indian on the reserve from paying personal property tax and real estate tax. That provision is in the present Indian Act, and is continued in the Indian bill which was introduced two
Dominion Elections Act weeks ago. Now, having those things in mind, and desiring to assist the Indian to become a full citizen of Canada, the government concluded that it would be desirable to give all Indians the vote, but it was not desirable that they should retain the exemption from personal property tax which they now enjoy under the Indian Act. Under these conditions one, two or three courses could be adopted. We could eliminate the personal property exemption in the Indian Act, if we desired, and give the vote at the same time; we could give the vote and retain the personal property exemption; or we could do as we have done. We have left it with the Indian to make his choice. The first lesson in Canadian citizenship surely is that we should all be equal with regard to paying taxes. With that thought in mind, this amendment was drafted and the result will simply be this. As formerly, all Indians off reserves may vote. Indians on reserves may retain their personal property tax exemption if they desire it, by not waiving their exemption, and consequently not having the vote. But we would hope, and I think probably the result will be, that a large number of Indians will sign this waiver of exemption, because they realize that if they desire to have a voice in sending a representative to the House of Commons, who will in turn impose taxes on them, no doubt, they therefore should subject themselves to the same kind of taxation as every member of the house is at the present time obliged to do. It has often been said-and I think some of the hon. members opposite and perhaps some on this side have said it-that the Indian was a second-grade citizen at the moment. Without admitting that, I hope the house will understand that we are trying to make him an equal citizen; but I do not think we should go one step further and make him a preferred citizen as against all others in the community.
With respect to the Eskimo, the difference is not that which has been made by the hon. member. The Eskimo is being given the vote because, under some conditions, he has shown his ability to exercise that proper judgment which we would expect of an elector. He is not exempt from taxation, as the Indian is. If he were, we would remove that exemption in the same way as we are removing it with respect to the Indian. If an Eskimo is in receipt of income sufficient to pay the present income tax, he will pay it. There is no question about that. There is no exemption at all. If I have not made this clear, I am sorry; but I would think that the committee would agree with me that this is the first step toward bringing the Indian within the influence of parliament and to bringing
381C

Dominion Elections Act parliament within the influence of the Indian: by giving the vote to the Indian on the reserve on precisely the same terms as other Canadians receive it.


George Alexander Drew: I think there is a point touched on by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) which is not sufficiently clear in the remarks that have been made by the minister; and I am not suggesting for a moment that the minister is not seeking to make it clear. But this is not a case of giving certain Indians a special exemption as a favour. We must go back to why the Indians were exempted from income tax or from any other taxes with regard to anything that they earn on the reserve. The Indians gave up their ancient claims to rich and valuable lands and it was part of a treaty between the Indians as tribes and the government of Canada. Under those treaties the Indians gave up rights which they believed were real. In return the dominion government, as its part of the treaty obligation, undertook to provide certain reserved areas where the Indians could live; undertook to give the Indians certain annual payments, both in kind and in cash; and also exempted them from taxation on such earnings as they might make on those reserves.


Walter Edward Harris: But not by treaty.


George Alexander Drew: The exemption which relates to taxes was the carrying forward of a principle which was inherent in the relationship. The very fact that it is an exemption in relation to what they earn on the reserves indicates that it was in relation to their position on the reserves which is a position created under those earlier rights.
No Indian is exempt in respect of any money he earns outside the reserve itself. There is a real reason why similar treaties were not made with the Eskimos. At the moment it is * difficult to imagine that the areas occupied by the Eskimos had a substantial land value. Conceivably, at some future time, minerals may be discovered in some of the Eskimo areas, although that has not yet happened so far as I know. But it was an entirely different type of country. The Indians were giving up rights in the parts of the country, to a very considerable extent, that were the most productive. The Eskimo's situation was different. It seems that in this particular case the Indian is called upon to pay on anything that he earns outside the reserve, without any waiver; and I can only feel that while no unfairness may have been intended, that is what is actually resulting from a proposal of this kind and that we are asking the Indians on the reserve to pay for


the right to vote. I do not think that is consistent with our whole approach to this situation and I therefore think that the motion that has been made to amend the section is in keeping with the history of this situation and with the broad approach to the problem.


Major James William Coldwell: I think there is one satisfactory feature about the discussion here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time that I can remember that this topic has been the source of so much discussion on both sides of the house, and I think that is a good thing. Perhaps it stems from the work of the Indian affairs committee of a couple of years ago and the fact that we are going to enact, I hope, a much more progressive Indian Act than we have had heretofore.
Whatever may be said about the matter, I think there is a principle involved. That principle is that the inhabitants of this country, no matter of what colour, race or creed, should have the right to vote. I think that the amendment that has been proposed should be supported by the house at this time. I am greatly, in sympathy with one suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), that in the granting of the right to vote the house might consider Indian representation as such. I think that practice has worked out well in New Zealand, and I believe it would be a fine thing to have in this house Indian representation by people of their own who would put forward the claims of the Indians and assist this house in reaching a conclusion with regard to the Indian problem in this country. Of one thing I am convinced. Largely because the Indians had no vote, had no representation and therefore had no influence in this house, they have been neglected for a good many years. There is one other fear one might have, and that is that they might be subject to political manipulation and political influence. That is one danger in the present circumstances. But after all, those of us who have lived in this country for a long time know groups of people who came out, unfamiliar with Canadian citizenship, in the early years of this century, and who were subject to political influence and political manipulation for a time; but they grew out of that. While for a time perhaps it had a bad effect, yet in the long run the people who were given the franchise appreciated it and used it. They have become citizens interested in all aspects of our public life and today are not subject to the kind of influences that might be exercised on our Indian population at this time. Therefore I cannot believe that that danger, though it is there and might prove to be a

Dominion Elections Act
very real danger for the time being, is one that we can escape no matter when the Indians are enfranchised. After all, those of us who know very much about what is going on in the country know that a good many people who perhaps are unemployed momentarily, and so on, are subjected to a good deal of pressure at various times, not the least of which perhaps is today taking place in some parts of this country. I think the principle of the amendment should be supported by the committee.


Mr. Fair:: I should like to ask the minister whether an individual Indian would have the privilege of waiving his taxation right, or whether all the band should do so?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is a personal privilege; any Indian who wishes personally to waive his right to exemption may do so.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 21; nays, 57.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Nomination day.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister explain
whether representations were received from the returning officers in each of these ridings where the nomination day is now to be made twenty-eight days before the election instead of fourteen? I am interested of course particularly in the ridings of Cariboo and Skeena.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not know whether any such representations were made to the electoral officer. They would go to the electoral officer and presumably to the committee. I do not know whether the chairman of the committee can tell us.


Howard Charles Green: I would like to know whether representations were received from the returning officers in these ridings, for example, Cariboo and Skeena in British Columbia.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have no knowledge of it, Mr. Chairman; that is all I can say at the moment.


William Joseph Browne: The only
difficulty that I recall in the committee was in connection with the two districts of Trinity-Conception and St. John's West. All the other districts are fairly large in area. For example, I believe the district of Port Arthur is 148,000 square miles in area, although it is not all populated. It was very sympathetically received. I believe the Saguenay is 640,000 square miles in area.
In the province of Newfoundland, as will be seen in the schedule, there are five ridings in which the nomination day is to be twenty-eight days before polling day. The chief discussion centred around whether St. John's West should be added to that list, because it is a district in which it is just as difficult
to get around in wintertime as in Trinity-Conception. It is a larger constituency than Trinity-Conception, and although it seemed to be favoured by the Secretary of State, it was put to a vote and St. John's West was not included. I do not think there was any discussion on any of the other constituencies mentioned in the schedule.


George Alexander Drew: I do think that the minister
should give us some detailed explanation because as one looks at these constituencies that have been chosen it must be possible for him and hon. members generally to think of other constituencies which would present almost equal difficulties. If it is sound in one case, it may well be sound in another.
Certainly as I look at the constituencies in Ontario, and in fact at the constituencies in other provinces, I can think of several where the difficulties are quite as great. I would like to know the basis on which these have been chosen, what the yardstick was.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Chairman, of course I cannot speak with any personal experience-


George Alexander Drew: Who is going to, if the minister cannot?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Possibly the leader of the
opposition has had more extensive travels in Canada than I have. So far as I am concerned, I have received the representations from the committee; that is the report of the committee.
So far as the province of Newfoundland is concerned, I have some extensive personal knowledge, at least of the northern portion of the island. I have little or no knowledge of the outlying portion of the district of St. John's West. I would be rather inclined to think that it ought to be included in the twenty-eight day period, but the hon. member for St. John's West did not seem to think so, and I bow to his superior knowledge on the subject. I know St. John's East does not require twenty-eight days. I know equally well that all the others do. I know this from personal experience.
So far as the rest of Canada is concerned, I am afraid I have no personal knowledge of it whatever. I have just simply taken the recommendations of the committee, where I assume these matters were fully discussed.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has been very fair in explaining that in the very nature of things he has not yet had the opportunity to have a wide contact with some of the more distant constituencies of Canada. But he is acquiring knowledge and will acquire more as time goes on. In matters of this kind ministers must frequently present bills of

Dominion Elections Act which they are not expected to have a personal knowledge. It does seem to me that when the house is asked to pass on a thing so important as this the minister should have an explanation as to why these particular constituencies have been chosen, and other constituencies which would seem to present equal problems have been omitted. It may be that there are reasons for increasing the time in this case. But as I look at this I can find some difficulty in understanding why Port Arthur would be so much more difficult than Fort William. I know it does cover a larger area, but both are very large constituencies. Coming farther east we reach the constituency that includes Sault Ste. Marie, which is an enormous one with tremendous travel difficulties involved. I can think of constituency after constituency in northern Ontario that I should think would present as great problems from the time point of view as those mentioned in the bill before us.
Looking at the constituencies in the province of Quebec, I should think that there are constituencies in addition to Chapleau and Saguenay that are almost as difficult to cover within the time factor mentioned as these would be. From whatever source he can obtain information, I think the minister should explain the yardstick used.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the committee and I might say that this whole problem was seriously considered there. It is in line with the thinking of members of the committee, and also reports given by the various returning officers in northern ridings that the time is extended from fourteen to twenty-eight days. It might be of interest to hon. members to know that those ridings where it is now recommended the twenty-eight day provision prevail are northern ridings.
In my own province of British Columbia they are the ridings of Cariboo and Skeena. Then in the Yukon area there is the riding of Yukon-Mackenzie Biver. Going over to Saskatchewan we find the same thing, that this provision is applied to the northern large-area ridings which are not as densely populated as the ridings farther to the south. The same applies in the other provinces where the committee has considered extending the time between nomination and polling day from fourteen to twenty-eight days.
Getting down to our new province of Newfoundland, the question of having twenty-eight days for all the ridings in that province was considered. I know that, because I made the motion myself in committee. It was generally considered, even by the hon. member [Mr. Drew.l
for St. John's West, that twenty-eight days in his riding was too long a time. He did feel however that possibly an extension from fourteen to twenty-one days would meet the problem more adequately.
I believe it is fair to say that in this whole matter of extending the time from fourteen to twenty-eight days there was unanimous opinion in the committee, including the hon. member for St. John's West. The extension of time has been allotted to those vast areas in the northern part of Canada, where the population is not great and the opportunities for travel and transportation are much less than in other ridings. Members of the committee were in agreement that the extension should be given in the various constituencies set out in the schedule. I believe it is fair to say that the committee was happy to go along with the recommendations. The report from the committee is selfexplanatory and well-nigh unanimous.


Mr. Mclvor:: I can understand why a longer time would be required in the constituency of Port Arthur than in Fort William. The latter is more compact, but it would be impossible to cover Port Arthur riding in the same time. I believe it would take twice as long. In my opinion the schedule is a reasonable one.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I might add a word of explanation. In the old act there was only one constituency which made provision for the twenty-eight day period. This schedule is the result of the experience of the last general election and, with the exception of the one riding of Cariboo-


William Joseph Browne: And Jasper-Edson.


Walter Edward Harris: -yes, and Jasper-Edson, is the result of the recommendation of the chief electoral officer.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the kind of information I was trying to get. If the chief electoral officer has made recommendations in regard to specific ridings, with the exception of the two that were added later, then the position is somewhat different, because I believe I am expressing what I know to be the view of members generally in the House of Commons when I say that we have a highly competent chief electoral officer. He would base his recommendation upon his experience in connection with these constituencies.
There is however this point I should like to place before hon. members. This twenty-eight day period brings the formal date of nomination very close to the issue of the writ. In making any amendment, no matter with

Supply-Labour



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
what feeling of comfortable assurance any party may occupy its place in the house at the moment, it must be kept in mind that amendments are made for the long term, with the expectation that they will apply to any situation in the house.
Without any suggestion of any impropriety or otherwise, it is certainly obvious that a government must know, well in advance of the day that it is going to issue a writ, that such a writ is to be issued. Consequently it is in a position to take certain steps, without doing anything wrong at all, whereas those parties who are not aware of the date are confronted with the fact that very little time remains between the date of the issue of the writ and the formal date of nomination. With the time of the issue of the writ being the same a situation is created where, in the ordinary course of events, the government has a distinct advantage, whatever that government may be. I suggest that hon. members should consider this carefully, since we are examining this from the point of view of legislation which should be satisfactory no matter which party is in power.
Walter Edward Harris: I think the
leader of the opposition must have been reading the remarks I made in committee, because I urged the point he has just made, in attempting to keep down the number of ridings in which there would be a twenty-eight day period.


George Alexander Drew: Is twenty-one days not adequate for these new ridings?


Walter Edward Harris: Apparently not.
That was canvassed with the chief electoral officer, and he stood by his recommendation of twenty-eight days.


John Lambert Gibson: When this matter was being
considered was the committee aware of the fact that the franchise was being extended to Eskimos? That will present great problems in the administration of the act. It will place serious strains upon the election machinery.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have mukluks in the machinery now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
275. Salaries of staff and allowances, $124,260.
Item stands.
General administration-
150. Departmental administration, $540,260.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I intend to
make somewhat extended remarks on this item which I think will help to have the items passed much more expeditiously. May I suggest that you call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
An hon. Member:: Carried.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, as I rose I thought I heard a voice call "Carried". Apparently the owner of that voice had not heard from Annapolis-Kings. If the minister detects an undertone of confidence in my voice I am sure he will the more appreciate, in a kindly way, what I have to say.
Just before the dinner adjournment I indicated that I intended to speak on industrial relations at perhaps greater length than is my custom. On this, the first occasion on which any of us has had anything to say with respect to labour relations, I intend to review as best I can the progress and development in this important field, including a bit of history and dealing with the present position, and to examine what I regard as certain trends which in my judgment augur well for the future.
I believe it will assist our understanding of the problem if we are conscious to some extent of the history of these developments. It is within the memory of many of us in this committee, for example, as to when the first large labour federation was formed. For a great many years we have had craft unions, which have confined themselves to the business of particular crafts. The I.T.U. or typographical union is an example of this; and it continues, as do many others, as a craft union. But it seems to me interesting to recall that the American federation of labor, the first organization to gather under its wing many craft organizations, was formed in our own time, in the city of Chicago, by Samuel Gompers, a little Welshman less than five feet tall, who came to the United States as an immigrant. I am sure many of us have forgotten that the brother organization, the committee for industrial organization, did not come into being until a comparatively few years ago, in 1931 if my memory serves me correctly.

Supply-Labour
Two men had much to do with that organization. John L. Lewis had his united mine workers of America, which in the beginning had a membership engaged only in the craft of coal mining. That was the first union to extend its operations to the unionization of projects or industries on an industrial basis. By that I mean that in a coal mine in Canada today, all persons engaged in that industry belong to the united mine workers of America including the carpenters-and there are many in a mine-the drivers, the machinists, the tipple men, and so on. In British Columbia the organization extends to include also railway employees, because the company that owns the mines operates its own railway in the Nanaimo area.
It is of some interest historically that Mr. Lewis sent Philip Murray into the steel plants to organize that industry on the same basis, and Philip Murray became the first president of that second large labour organization, the congress of industrial organizations or, as it is commonly known, the C.I.O. It is also of passing but not great interest that Lewis later threw Philip Murray out of the united mine workers, the charge against him being dual unionism. In other words Murray, originally a member of the coal miners' organization, being sent out by the president of the miners to do a job of steel organization, then was expelled from the U.M.W. of A. because of dual unionism, the duality being the steelworkers and the coalminers. That organization had a tremendous growth and marks, I think, the greatest change within organized labour. I refer, of course, to the business of organizing in one union the various craftsmen engaged in carrying on the work of a particular industry.
In Canada we have two companion organizations. The C.C.L. is the child, or perhaps I should more properly dignify it by saying that the C.C.L. is a partner of the new organization in the United States, the C.I.O. That, within unionism itself, it seems to me indicates the greatest change that has taken place within those organizations.
Everyone will say, and certainly the newspapers do, that certain individuals have been given too much power; that may or may not be true. I think the man picked on most by commentators, editorialists, and so on, without complete knowledge on their part, is John L. Lewis. They have gone altogether too far, and made many charges against that man which are without justification. While realizing that the leader of the united mine workers has committed excesses, I am unable to forget the great elevation that he has given to his men and their families in matters of
IMr. Smith (Calgary West).]
daily living; and particularly in matters permitting the parents and children to receive a proper education which fitted them to go forth into the world, and take their part in the struggle for existence. Let no one think that I am condoning, for example, this simple fact: Within the last year or two that one man has held a nation, yes even a continent, in fear. It seems to me that is an example of absolute power perhaps growing and feeding on itself, and thus doing things which in a democracy we cannot condone. We are hoping the day -has gone when any individual controlling an organization of any kind can hold a continent in fear, and hold perhaps its future for a time at least in the hollow of his hand.
When I say that neither am I going to forget that industry itself, in that same period, was guilty of excesses. I do not think anyone in this House of Commons who had read Mr. McGregor's report on the bread-baking industry, the flour industry, the rubber industry or the glass industry, could for one moment say that in those cases industry has been altogether altruistic in its outlook. I believe that is true of some industries not yet examined. That brings us in these matters to the point where it is necessary that legislatures and parliaments take a hand, because only in legislatures and parliaments do we find a system of some control of excesses of this and other kinds. So we come back historically to this. Why have we organized labour? I have said before, and I repeat tonight, the reason is that, up to some years ago, industry regarded labour merely as an intake product. My reading of the history of the labour movement is that labour organized in self-defence. I am not suggesting for a moment that that was necessary, but I do say it was something which expedited the growth of unionism. So I now repeat what I said the first day that I came to this House of Commons: I believe in organized labour. I add that I believe in strong unions.
We all say here that we believe in collective bargaining. That is something which has been adopted in our own legislation, and in the legislation of every province in Canada. But, Mr. Chairman, we are speaking with our tongue in our cheek if we do not add that we believe in the bargaining between industry and strong unions, because without that collective bargaining has no meaning. There can be no proper collective bargaining except between equals or people who are nearly equal. The day has long since gone by when labour received something as a matter of generosity. Let me say this: I am sorry to say what I have because I know there are some institutions, large employers of labour, that are not unionized or being unionized. They have never had any difficulty. I think perhaps

one of the great examples on this continent is Lever Brothers, the largest manufacturers of soap on this continent. So that struggle, so to speak, was forced on a great many of our people simply by circumstance. But that which was at the bottom of labour organizations was the greatest circumstance in the world, enough to eat, a place to live in, and an opportunity to bring up a family, not in fear of starvation but with some opportunity.
We all say we should live in fear of God. How can that be done if you and your children are hungry? So, today we have reached a position where we have at least strong unions. I am going to say that I think that has gone as far as it should go. I know there are many people who, when they find difficulty in this or other civilized countries, say that there should be a law: "that should not be, we must have a law." Mr. Chairman, I want to make it plain that there are many things which law can do, but there are also many things which law simply cannot do. Take a simple illustration. You cannot make a woman sing, nor can you make a man work. All that law can do is to say if you do not do so and so, then you will be subject to certain penalties. That is the most that law can do anywhere. Leaving our legislation as general as possible along those lines seems to me the best method; and I intend to quote some cases which I think prove that we should have our industrial legislation in rather general terms.
At the present time we find labour well organized. What have been its gains? In numbers during the last war the gains have been tremendous. We find today labour organizations which until a few years ago were undreamed of. I give you as the best example the largest union on the North American continent, the automobile workers' union. I am glad to see the tremendous growth they have had, and before I have finished I intend to mention what I think is a great achievement of statesmanship between that union led by Walter Reuther and the General Motors Company, the largest employers of labour in the United States of America.
I want to make this fact plain. Labour properly began to raise wages. To do what? To get its share of the profit dollar of industry; because without the profit dollar there cannot be dividends and neither can there be wages. To me one of the most significant things happened just a few years ago where three men met. They were Eric Johnston, who was then president of the United States chamber of commerce; Philip Murray, the head of the C.I.O.; and Mr. Green, head of the A.F. of L. They gave us a seven-point program for progress in American industry.
55946-242J
Supply-Labour
But all three agreed and affirmed the profit motive in industry. We do not hear much of it lately-and you do not hear of it at all in the United States-but some people here, the C.I.O. for example, use this catch phrase: Production for use and not for pofit. Only in Canada on this continent do you hear anything of that. For a time in the United States, in election after election, Mr. Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate ran. He polled an insignificant number of votes. In late years it has been Mr. Thomas. But their polling of votes is so insignificant as not to be a factor in politics over there.
I mention that fact because they have affirmed the profit motive as the principle which makes industry tick and which therefore makes production grow, and without which we all know there can be neither money to pay wages nor money to pay dividends. In saying that I know that I am not asserting any new principle but am affirming an extremely old one. What does it mean? It means that both parties are entitled to a fair share of that profit dollar; but it also means that both parties must pull their oars in the production boat in order to entitle them to any share of that profit dollar.
We can all remember-and I am sure the minister remembers it well-that in the old days the great battle was based on an hourly wage or a daily wage. That is still true. I advised some people in labour with whom I was quite closely associated for some time that I thought they were wrong. I still think so. I am sorry to say that in these industrial matters we are still battling over so much an hour, so much a day or so much a week. It seems to me the principle which we must find, and we have not reached it yet, is one whereby the man who sells his labour can find some means of not eating roast beef when business is good and starving the rest of the time; surely we can find some system whereby that individual can eat with his family over twelve months of the year as long as there are twelve months in a year. I am not saying offhand that therefore any industry must provide a living-and by a living I do not mean an existence; I mean a decent living. All industries cannot provide those wages for a twelve-month period because having regard to climatic conditions, and having regard often to the product which is produced, we cannot bring everything to that basis. But it seems to me that the job of industry is this, and I include farming; I include every instrument from a spade to a tractor: the things which are produced. Without shifting labour all over the country when this industry closes or when that industry

Supply-Labour
closes, the nearer we can get to finding a twelve-month basis on which to obtain our labour forces, then, in my judgment, while we may not have reached the millennium, we have made an approach to it. We then will have laid the foundation for a lasting peace in industrial relations.
Speaking again of this profit dollar-a profit dollar in industry for whom? I give this thought to the house, not in any sense urging it strongly, but it seems to me we have advances to make on that basis. Surely industry and labour within itself can find some means of giving labour a greater portion of that profit dollar as profits increase instead of all of us being bound by this so much an hour, so much a day, so much a week business.
As to those of us who say in our economics that we believe in the profit motive, let us think:	Profit for whom? Let us have profit
for whom? Surely not only for the person who owns the plant. Surely we must in some way or other include those hundreds of thousands of people who are engaged in the operation of that plant, and I use the word "plant" in its broadest sense. Surely we must realize that they are part of the profit system; and, when justified by larger profits, they are entitled to a larger share of that profit dollar.
Now I come to this point. Some hardheaded people will tell me that I am theoretical, idealistic, that I am talking about something that I know nothing about. In answer to that I say this. The scheme in which I am so interested, not advocating, is a matter for study by this house and by those in authority in the department. It seems to me to be so important that we should raise our sights a little and not confine ourselves to the minimum way. We are now raising hourly wages in cents, and so on. Taking the long view we should seek a system whereby we will not have these uprisings and stirrings every month or so. We should endeavour to have the long view and get on a long basis.
I notice some people smiling; therefore I am going to give an example of progress in the very thing that I am talking about. I think the agreement arrived at the other day between the automobile workers and General Motors marks an important milestone in the history of negotiations, of settlement between labour and industry. It is too recent for anyone to have forgotten. The point I emphasize is this. It is a settlement on a five-year basis. After all the struggle and trouble that we have been through, to my

mind that is the finest trend-if it marks a trend, and I think it does-in the settlement of these relations.
I confess that General Motors must have a deep consciousness of conviction that things economically in the United States are not going to pot, that they are going to progress; because in the arrangements which they have made, aside from pension benefits or other benefits, they have arranged for an hourly increase in pay during the life of that agreement. But then, what do they get in return? They get peace; they get enthusiasm in their working force. In my judgment that is a tremendous advance in labour relations as we know them on this continent. I hope and I trust that that example may be followed in many other industries because we are arriving somewhere. But, Mr. Chairman, aside from all these material things, aside from picking this and that and the other thing out, I think what it has demonstrated above all is that it shows what can be accomplished. By whom? By men of good will. You will never get anywhere in these things as long as you have some individual who just says:	"They are all wrong about
that" and who sits there. I have seen some labour negotiations; and when I speak of this good will I bring it down in its application to something of which I have some knowledge.
I have seen this happen; in fact it nearly always happens. I know that, in contracts made by the industries in Alberta and in British Columbia with the united mine workers, it is going to take at least three days before they get anywhere. Everybody knows that. They meet the first day. One side states its ultimatum and the other side gives you its ultimatum, made a little tougher perhaps, because of what the first fellow has said. And then we all go home. Well, perhaps some of us do not go home. We may stay in the hotel or something of that kind. A buys B a cigar; C may buy D his dinner. Do not think that labour is broke any more. I am happy to know that they stay at the best hotels in the country, as they should. They stay in the same place as the people with whom they are negotiating. I would not suggest-


Mr. Major:: Where the farmers should be able to stay.


John Lambert Gibson: They go to California.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If I had the
opportunity I would ask you to drive me in your Packard to Florida, but at the moment I am not going to ask you to do that.
I would not go so far as to say that one might buy the other a Coca-Cola particularly if the hon. member for Fort William were

around. The point I am trying to make is that they know the kind of men with whom they are dealing-and there are some men with whom we cannot deal; do not let us have any doubt about that, but there is usually a way of taking care of them, because in these affairs it is a majority-rule matter, the old democratic way which is in vogue in this chamber. I have seen it happen so often. One side says: "I have read all sorts of things about that big shot. He is not such a bad fellow as I thought he was." Therefore this three-day rule in the coal business-and it is by custom a rule-is an excellent one, because by the time they get down to business and try to settle their contracts those engaged in the negotiations usually have come to the conclusion that their opposite numbers are human and are not such bad fellows after all. That is what conciliation is. That is why it is so wise that in practically all civilized countries we have come to rely on the help of conciliation. But again I repeat, sir, that conciliation can only take place between men of good will. Therefore it behooves all of us not to make snap or quick judgments when we read something in the paper about something that is happening in Tennessee, in the coal mines of West Virginia, in the theatres of Hollywood, and in the musicians' union somewhere else. Do not let us rush to conclusions. Before we make up our minds let us get both sides of the picture and hope that from then on negotations will be conducted by men of good will.
I intend to say a word about the future; and I intend to mention some trends through events that have happened in my own time which I think augur well for the future. I have already said, sir, that these organizations came into being in the time of many of us who are sitting in this house. But I am going to enumerate two or three things that have happened, and that is by legislation, in favour of labour. The first I mention is workmen's compensation which, I believe, is in all the provinces of Canada. The next is unemployment insurance. Let no one try to deny that those are advances on the humanitarian side of the problem I have been discussing.
Today in industrial organizations we have personnel men. Some of them are good and some of them, I know, are bad; the human factor never attains perfection. But only fifteen years ago who in this chamber this evening would have heard of a man's being paid money to act as a personnel man in dealing with employees?
We have many things of that kind. For instance, we have pension plans. There are between 600,000 and 700,000 labourers under such plans, if I remember correctly-
Supply-Labour
and I am proud of the word "labourer"; do not ever think that I am using that word in any sneering fashion. There are that many labourers who are taking advantage of industrial pension schemes which have developed as a result of agreement between themselves and their employers. In most cases both employer and employee make contributions to the funds thus set up which ultimately result in pensions for individuals.
Then there are thrift plans, savings plans, in many organizations today. None of us in this room ever heard of such schemes as far back as, let us say, fifteen years ago. So the point I am trying to make is that it seems to me industry has learned its lesson and now regards labour from the humanitarian standpoint, where formerly it did no such thing.
Let us take a look at labour-management committees. I know many of us think that those are grievance committees. They are not, at all. The minute a labour-management committee becomes a grievance committee it loses its usefulness. It is true that in all labour contracts today, or practically all of them, grievance procedure is set out. There are some difficulties in some industries as to when and where a man may consult his grievance officers-"grievance steward", I believe is the term used. I mention these things only to show the advances which have been made within the organizations themselves.
Now my time has expired.


Mr. Mitchell:: Carry on.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I mention one thing which I believe is of importance to all of us-and in this I pay the greatest possible compliment to organized labour that I am capable of paying. I refer to organized labour ridding itself of communist leadership. Mr. Chairman, that was not easy. Walter Reuther has only one useful arm today because of the job he did in that cause. Remember, it required not only moral but also physical courage. I wonder how many hon. members know the type of letters that fellows I know so well-Pat Conroy, for instance-have received when doing what he and his fellow officers have done in getting rid of men like Jackson, the head of the electrical workers in this country. It is no sissy business those men are engaged in.


Humphrey Mitchell: You're telling me!


Arthur Leroy Smith: So far as I am
concerned, I hope none of us ever again, when the word "communism" is mentioned, will think of labour without remembering that organized labour has done more than any other agency, and done it more effectively, to stem the rust of communism in this country.

Supply-Labour
Let me refer to one other thing-and that only for a moment, because I know that today coal miners get good wages. I have been underground in many mines. So far as I am concerned, they cannot be paid too much; that is no place for me.
Today in the town of Cadomin there are five men, all of them with families, who are buried in the rocks and muck from a flash flood in the Cadomin mine. So, never again let us listen to anyone who says, "Oh, those so-and-so miners, they are getting $14 a day"-or they are getting this, that or the other thing. True, economically these things can and do get out of line. But let us never forget that today there are five widows and fifteen or twenty kids standing at the pithead at Cadomin waiting until the emaciated and smashed remains of their fathers and the providers for those families come to the surface.
Let us also not forget that in the town of Nordegg, where I personally have stood and counted the graves of thirty-nine men killed in the mine, the town is today burned out. I do not know how many were employed there -perhaps three or four hundred. But all there is in that town of Nordegg is the Brasseau mine, and the mine cannot possibly operate again for six months. So far as I am concerned, I hope those men have been paid enough money so that they can get by until the opportunity to work again comes to them. I hope they have been getting enough to make savings of that kind.
I close with this:	Having regard to the
ladder of progress I have mentioned, much of it as a result of legislative action by parliaments or legislatures, in the over-all picture I cannot help being optimistic. Anyone who has compared the present situation with what it was twenty-five years ago, and has not marked the improvement, must indeed be a pessimist. And so in this Dominion of Canada, sitting as we do on the finest resources left in this world, and with a good machine for employment, and with a strong and virile labouring force, and with humanitarianism at last in the minds of management, he must be a pessimist indeed who falters after looking at the bright sunshine which sheds its rays on our industrial Canada, and all men of good will engaged therein.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I thought that we were intended to discuss the estimates of the Department of Labour tonight. I have never attempted to weary the house by holding a post mortem on the development of labour in Canada, tout after listening to the hon. member for Calgary West for the last hour my thoughts were provoked back

to matters that I like to forget. I am going to say a few words about the statement the hon. member has just made. If he reads it tomorrow I think he will find it rather difficult to know on which side he is. I was reminded of a lot of speeches made by the former prime minister. He would nearly say something in one paragraph, he would change it in the next and then he would finish up by not having said very much about anything.
One thing in the hon. member's remarks that stuck in my mind was the statement that all the advances in the field of labour in this country had been brought about by legislative means. With that I disagree completely. I can remember the efforts made to organize labour in this country for a long time back, and that was not as a payroller tout as one of the rank and file who can take some credit for the basic organization of labour.
When the hon. member makes a statement that we have gone a long way and that labour is well organized in this country, that statement is not correct. Out of a total potential trade union membership of five million there are only about two million workers organized. There are still three million unorganized workers in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: How many were there in 1939?


Clarence Gillis: The basic organization of labour was not brought about by the legislatures or by this House of Commons. Unionism in its early days had no friends in the legislatures or in the House of Commons. The war periods gave labour the opportunity to organize. I can remember before the first war helping a lot of men, who never got their names in the newspapers, set up the basic organization of the mine workers union in Nova Scotia. They would allow you to fool around with the provincial machine that did not mean very much, but I can remember seeing Nova Scotia barb-wired in 1909 when the united mine workers attempted to come into that province for the purpose of setting up international unionism in Canada to replace the company organization that was functioning at that time.
I can remember sitting in a hall and seeing company stooges shoot potential union men for no other reason than that they were union men. I heard no protests at that time, either in the legislature or in the House of Commons. The people who did the shooting were never even tried. I can remember seeing women and children thrown out on the streets and having to live in tents or in the basements of churches for months and

months. Even after that struggle the union was denied the right of recognition by the operators in that province.
Our first break came during the war of 1914 to 1918. I can remember before 1914 that I was fired a dozen times because I had put my name on a card showing that I had joined an organization. That state of affairs existed in Nova Scotia in 1914 and 1915. During the war period the mine workers came in and in 1919 they were able to set up their organization and succeed in getting a contract and absorbing the provincial organization. We had no legislation then and we had no friends to speak for us, either in the legislature or in the House of Commons.
I can remember when the trade union was recognized by the operators, but we still had no legislation. It was not until 1925 that we had our first trade union act in that time which was forced through by the opposition. The then leader of the C.C.F. party, Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, sent a draft bill to Nova Scotia setting out what he thought a trade union act should be. I was president of one of the organizations and I can remember forming committees and bombarding the legislature on the eve of an election. The leader of the opposition introduced the bill into the legislature and the government could not afford to ignore it. They took the draft bill and amended it to include the check-off privileges.
The hon. member went on to say that we had unemployment insurance. When did we get it? We got it after a struggle of 25 years by those who were organized in this country. On the eve of the last war we got the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then the hon. member said that we have compensation, that it was handed to us on a plate. We got a compensation act in Nova Scotia in 1917, in the midst of a war.


Mr. Homuth:: We had ours in Ontario long before that.


Clarence Gillis: I am referring to Nova Scotia because that is what I know about. The hon. member spoke about personnel management. We got that only in the last war.


Humphrey Mitchell: From the government.


Clarence Gillis: I am ready to give credit when credit is coming to you. You went along with it, you developed the mechanics, but we did not get it until the last war.


Mr. Ferrie:: Was it not worth fighting for?


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member did not do much fighting for it. The same thing applies to labour-management committees. I am not criticizing the government; I am simply answering the statements made, intentionally
Supply-Labour
or otherwise, by the hon. member for Calgary West, that all the progress in the field of labour relations in this country was handed to labour on a platter by the legislatures and the House of Commons.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a question of privilege, I know the hon. member would not misquote me intentionally. I never said anything of the kind. I said that various improvements had come about through legislation. I did not say that it was handed on a platter by anybody to anybody else. I gave the greatest credit in the world to union organization. I said also that they were forced into that position as a matter of defence and had made great strides. I know the hon. member would not deliberately misquote me but people are listening to him- he is worth listening to as a rule-and I know he would want to be correct.


Clarence Gillis: 'I have no intention of misquoting the hon. gentleman and I would not be saying what I am saying were it not for the fact that I think that anyone reading his speech in Hansard and knowing the history of labour and its struggles and sacrifices might be misled.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will accept the judgment of the hon. member if he will read it.


Clarence Gillis: I am concerned about the fact that we are becoming complacent; we think the job is done. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to wait for another war in order to get into trade unionism those three million workers who are still unorganized. I don't want to kid the unorganized of this country that the labour department is going to send out people to organize them, or that anyone from this House of Commons will go out and organize them. The machinery is there now to make that work much easier than it was in the past, and the job must be done by the men in the field themselves. Their struggle is much easier than when we formed the basic organizations in this country a good many years ago. But it seems to take a war to break the jam and develop ideas that should be developed during peacetime so the machinery will be available if and when an emergency should hit the country.
I could go on and talk about this matter for hours but I do not want to; I want to try to forget that period in the development of the labour movement in this country. It does not bring back pleasant memories to me. What I -really want to talk about tonight is the labour department, and first I want to tell the minister that he is not going to be

Supply-Labour
bothered much from this corner. In the first place the government sent the hon. member for Vancouver East to Geneva as an adviser on labour matters to the delegation that went there, and I compliment the minister on his judgment. He chose a man with very wide experience; but if he were here tonight he would be discussing these estimates. Another person who will not be here tonight is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is in the committee that is trying to write a social security program.
As to the labour department, in the first place I recognize that the minister has a very capable organization. At the present time, owing to the fact that since the end of the war the labour relations picture has changed considerably as far as the federal department is concerned in that jurisdiction has been handed back to the provinces, the department is relatively free with the exception of conciliation and those workers coming under the national labour code, so there is not the pressure that existed during the war period. Nevertheless I want to say a word or two on some things that have to do with the dominion and the provinces.
The first thing I want to talk about is the fact that unemployment is still a responsibility of the federal government. I am not going to talk about the whole of Canada. There are hon. members here from the rest of Canada who can bring to the minister's attention what they think is wrong in that field; or if everything is all right they should tell him so. In the maritime provinces we have a permanent unemployment situation that is bad. In putting out figures on unemployment the federal government say that if more than five per cent of the working population is unemployed it spells danger and something must be done about it. That is the target they have set; that is what they consider dangerous. In the maritime provinces today we have some 57,000 unemployed, which according to government figures recently released is approximately ten per cent of the available working population. So the situation is twice as bad as it should be, according to the government's own analysis of unemployment. The over-all average across the country is about seven per cent.
The problem in the maritime provinces, mind you, is not regional or seasonal. The situation is bad. To some extent it was relieved following the end of the war by an arrangement under which the department took workers from the mari times to the central provinces. During the past two years, however, there have been layoffs in Ontario and Quebec, and most of the people who
[Mr. Gillis.l
were moved to the central provinces have found their way back to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. That problem is -aggravated by the fact that thousands of young men and women are leaving school every year, and there is no possible chance of employment for them in that area. For the last twenty-five or thirty years the maritime provinces have sent an average of some fifteen thousand young people to the United States each year. That migration has been continuous over that period of time; it is still going on, and nothing is being done to change the situation.
I have heard a great deal of talk in the house about mechanization of the coal mines and steel plants. Mechanization does not relieve unemployment; it creates it. Every time you bring in a more perfect machine you step up production, lower costs and put more men and women on the street. If anyone thinks that mechanization of the steel plants and coal mines is going to relieve the unemployment problem in that area, he is wrong; it will increase it. It is difficult to find risk capital to go into that part of the country, but in the immediate post-war period the government did have a program. It tabled a white paper in the house in which it said it had ready and surveyed a shelf of public works in the different provinces, which would relieve the unemployment problem. Well, that public works program has been shelved. In my part of the country at least great hopes were placed on having the Canso bridge commenced this spring, but now I understand the provincial government has gone and thrown a monkey wrench into the machinery. The bridge was all mapped out; the plans were drawn for a 22-foot bridge. Then the provincial government decided it wanted a 24-foot bridge. That may be just an excuse-


William F. Carroll: The provincial government did no such thing. This dominion parliament decided that the national highway would have to be 24 feet wide.


Clarence Gillis: I am not talking about the national highway; I am talking about the bridge across the strait of Canso.


William F. Carroll: That is part of the highway.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Transport, for whom I have a good deal of respect and who I think is reasonably truthful, told the house in reply to a question I asked that as far as they were concerned the plans were drafted and the bridge was to be 22 feet wide. Now the provincial government have taken the position that they want a 24-foot bridge, and if that is the case the provincial government are the people who made the

decision. The Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond had better get together and decide who's who and what's what on that point.


William F. Carroll: I suppose the hon. member knows that when the Canso bridge is built it will be part of the national highway.


Clarence Gillis: That makes no difference. The national highway is going to be four thousand miles long, and it is only one mile across the strait of Canso.


The Chairman:: Order. I think this discussion is pretty far from the Department of Labour.


Clarence Gillis: Well, that is a matter of interpretation. I am talking about unemployment; I am talking about the government's public works program, and pointing out to the minister that this project would have employed a' large number of people and [DOT]taken the edge off that unemployment problem. I am not blaming the minister, but the matter has been messed up somewhere between Halifax and the Department of Transport. It is the same government, or governments of the same complexion; nevertheless that problem is still there.
I mention that project because it was something specific to which the people were looking forward, but the federal government had plans for other projects. Now it has decided not to go ahead with any of those works. That is the point I am coming to, that as far as this government is concerned it is now the responsibility of the provincial and municipal governments to devise ways and means of relieving unemployment. Any hon. member from the maritimes who will make an honest analysis of that problem in his own riding will tell you that neither the municipalities nor the provincial governments have either the capital or the technical people to carry on that work. It cannot be done. The planning must be done by the federal government, and a large part of the financing done here. In view of the fact that that particular angle of unemployment relief in that part of the country has been shelved, I am suggesting now to the Minister of Labour that some means should be found of assisting the municipality in doing something for the permanently unemployed people until there are other opportunities for them. I cannot see anything there for them at the present time.
The minister's department did make a gesture by providing supplementary allowances under the Unemployment Insurance Act. For a few months that helped, but it has run out and these people are back where they started. Some of these men have been
Supply-Labour
idle for the last two years, and some even longer than that. Most of them are veterans of this war, and they have exhausted everything. The provincial government has a responsibility; there is no doubt about that. I wonder if the minister's department could not consult with the provincial government to see if something could not be done about the unemployment problem, either by going ahead with some of the public works projects or by extending the supplementary benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The second matter I wish to bring to the minister's attention concerns the employment offices across this country. They handle the unemployment insurance, and register the unemployed. I do not think those offices are serving the purpose they could serve in the field of unemployment. For example, they register the unemployed. They have their qualifications, their trade, and know how long they have been unemployed. I believe that seniority should govern in this matter, and the person who has been unemployed the longest, with due regard to family status, should be placed first. If the offices had a directive to that effect, I believe it would be carried out. What happens is that there is work for twenty or thirty men in a certain place. There are perhaps three thousand unemployed, or perhaps if it is like the city of Sydney there are five thousand in that one city. Instead of the employer taking his employees from the office that knows the circumstances and qualifications of each man, political pressure from the outside sends in a list, and that is the way the thing is done. The employment office has not the right to say that this man has been unemployed the longest, has family obligations, and his unemployment insurance has run out, so he should be employed first. It is not done that way.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend would permit a question concerning this political pressure from the outside, I should like to know, if there is political pressure on the employment offices from the outside, whether it is by my friend's party or my party or anyone. 1 should like to know that.


Clarence Gillis: The minister was probably in the house when I brought up the question specifically-


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not being critical, you understand.


Clarence Gillis: No, but I brought this matter up with the Minister of Transport. I pointed out to him that, instead of the contractor at the local Sydney airport getting his men through the employment office, the men who were hired on that particular job had to go to the defeated federal and provincial candidate and

Supply-Labour
get a slip before they could secure employment. I suggested at that time that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport should get together to see that government contracts have a clause written into them giving preference to veterans and preventing any kind of political skulduggery. I think the minister knows, and I think every member of this house who has an unemployment insurance office in his riding knows, that that kind of thing does happen. I know it is not the policy of the minister's department, but until such time as the offices are given some kind of instructions, and there is cooperation with the employer, that sort of thing will create friction and raise a question in the minds of the men who are standing in the queue looking for a job. The matter is not handled as it should be.
I should like to say to the minister that, so far as I am concerned, I do not want any favours in this matter. I do not make any recommendations, but any time a person comes to me and I can help him in any way his politics are immaterial. As long as he has the qualifications, I shall help him. The man who is unemployed the longest, who has the greatest family responsibility, as long as he has the qualifications to handle the position which may be vacant, is the one who should be employed first. I do not want to see it done in any other way. The employer is not co-operating as he should, particularly in the community from which I come. I say that because I know. They do not go to the office to seek their employees. They just pick and choose as they like in that coal and steel industry. During the war your offices served a useful purpose. An employer sent in his requirements, and the office filled them. When the war was over the employers got back to what they considered normal. The offices are able to do an excellent job if they receive the co-operation of the employer.
Another matter I should like to mention, because these are provincial-federal matters, is the matter of vocational training. There was a good job done in that field during the war, and I know the minister had an excellent staff. Since the end of the war a fairly good job has been done. I know of two spots in Nova Scotia where schools were operated jointly by the federal and provincial governments. Within the last few months I have seen press statements, and I have received wires, to the effect that the school at North Sydney was to be closed. It was doing an excellent job, not only in training veterans for employment after the war but in taking the young unemployed and training them in certain trades and skills, such as carpenters, bricklayers, masons and that kind of thing. The school was doing a good job in turning

out fine tradesmen. My information is that within the last couple of months the federal government has withdrawn from that field. The provincial government takes the stand it is not going to maintain the school, so it is being closed. I suggest to the minister that those schools were doing excellent work. They are equipped, and good men were running them. For the small amount of money that it costs to keep those schools operating, I believe the closing of them should be reconsidered. From time to time I hear in the house, and I support it, about grants to universities; and how necessary it is to train everyone in the university. However, we shall want hewers of wood and drawers of water. If every one comes out of a university with a B.A. and wants a job with the government, or is a doctor or lawyer, there will be no one to exploit, so no one will have any money to pay these people.	.
If one goes to the unemployment offices in -many sections, one finds a queue of young people outside. In the office there is a long list of requests for bricklayers, carpenters, and plasterers, but these people standing outside cannot fill those positions. There is a need for vocational training. The minister has faith in vocational training, I know. Instead of leaving the field, we should be expanding it.
Another matter I wish to take up with the minister is the fact that during the war- when there is a war on we can do a lot of things, and do them quickly-the minister's department established something I considered a long step forward. He established an apprenticeship in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. For the short time that that apprenticeship worked, it did an excellent job. It was praised in the highest way by the miners themselves. Many people think that, to be a coal miner, all you have to be able to do is to shovel coal. Coal mining is something which requires highly technical skill. In the coal mines of Nova Scotia, for example, you have to serve three years of apprenticeship underground and write two fairly stiff examinations before you qualify as a coal miner. You have got to know a good deal about ventilation, compressed air, roof pressures, electricity and things of that kind. You cannot learn that overnight; and you can go down there in a mine without any previous training and get your neck broken quickly.
The regulations in the coal mines of Nova Scotia are stiff. The minister's department established something that I thought was looking a long way to the future in those mines when he set up that apprenticeship in the mines of Nova Scotia; a young fellow went from the surface with experts who trained him for six months in all of the technique

of coal mining, and they could qualify him in six months to write his first examination and get his first papers. It takes him eighteen months to do that under ordinary circumstances and under exceedingly dangerous circumstances. But in effect they set up a school underground, and they were doing an excellent job and turned out a good type of miner. The miners themselves were all for it. I think the company agreed that the production of coal on those school faces was paying off the costs of training the trainee. But again, as soon as the war was over, that whole scheme folded up and was withdrawn. I am suggesting to the minister that, under Bill No. 217, you are loaning to the Dominion Coal Company in Nova Scotia some $7,500,000 to mechanize and to electrify the underground workings in those old collieries. If you can spend $7 million or $7,500,000 on equipment alone, you should be able to provide this training. It is a new type of equipment also, and it is a type of equipment such as the men going into these mines from now on should be trained in before they go in. That is in the interest of production and it is in the interest of everybody. I am making this suggestion to the minister now. I know that all of his department, the deputy minister and others, who worked on the vocational training end of the thing were all for this kind of thing. I know that the deputy minister in 1946 and in part of 1947 worked on and with the miners' unions and the coal company in Nova Scotia trying to continue that type of trainee program, but in the aftermath of the war they struck some stumbling blocks. I think perhaps the greatest one came from the company themselves. I suggest that that matter be given further study because it is necessary and it is in the interests of the industry. I am just leaving that thought with the minister again. Having regard to the small amount of money that that sort of thing cost-because in the final analysis it was not costing the company anything; the production from those school faces more than offset the cost of the training that was allocated to them-I suggest to the minister that he might take another look at this point that I mention.
I think the employment offices could be more effective if they had the co-operation of the employer or were given directives to handle unemployment on the basis of the longest out of a job, with the greatest number in the family, and got away from this idea of favouritism that exists in many of the offices across the country.
I am sorry that I occupied this amount of time. I did not intend to; and I want to assure the hon. member for Calgary West
Supply-Labour
that I was not being critical of him. He just opened up a lot of old sores in my mind when he began to talk, and I like to forget the past, particularly that past, and look to the future.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do they fire their shots? I was wondering about their skill.


Clarence Gillis: No. They have their fire bosses. I think too that labour has grown up. I think that in the two congresses of labour in this country you have as fine a body as exists in any country. Their work is difficult. To advance is the big problem. I think we have made many strides forward in the last twenty-five years. They were not easy strides. They were exceedingly painful ones in the early days.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They were.


Clarence Gillis: I think one of the best developments I have seen in the last few months has been the realization on the part of labour that they have nearly reached the saturation point in demands for wages and they are turning their attention to social security matters. But one of the longest steps forward was the signing of the long-term contract. I know that the miners in Nova Scotia always insisted on a one-year contract. I concluded a long time ago that it was not good for the simple reason that you spent about five months negotiating your agreement; by the time you got it signed up you had about six months to run and you were back into trouble again. It did not give the operator nor the union itself a chance to plan or to find out where they fitted in.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How true.


Clarence Gillis: In this last contract they got around to signing for two years. Over in the United States I think some of the industries have signed up for five years. I think the long term is a desirable thing from now on. I am appreciative of all the things that have been done by the departments of labour since they have had in the legislatures and in the House of Commons a few people to prod them along. They are not doing a bad job. I know the minister's department well, section by section. I got in touch with them. I think he has an excellent department, but they are being held back. There are a lot of limitations that we ourselves place on them. We are not prepared to push them as far as most of them would like to go. I am sorry that I have occupied so much time. I shall reserve the rest for the minister's estimates.


Mr. Johnston:: I should like to say a word-

Supply-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: I have got to keep all this in my mind, Mr. Chairman, and I will not keep you long. I deeply appreciate what the hon. member for Calgary West has said and also what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said. It is almost like a competition to settle who of the three of us is going to be the next Minister of Labour. I think that is all to the good. I was quite interested in the statement of the hon. member for Calgary West. I knew many actors in the labour drama on the North American continent and in Europe and I think among us all a great deal has been done. Do not let us take all the credit. There are a great many people outside the labour movement and inside it who have made the contribution that has been made to raise the social standards of the working people of this nation in the last thirty years. It is like planting an acorn. You do not get an oak the next day.
As I have often said in this house, a trade union agreement is based on character; it is not a legal document. But there are in my judgment certain fundamentals that govern the life of a nation, of a trade union or of an employer group. I think it was my good friend the hon. member for Calgary West who spoke of production for use instead of profit. I do not know whether any members of this committee have read "Das Kapital" by Marx. I think I could count on both hands all those in the Dominion of Canada who have read that book. They start out with the first volume and get tired before they get to the end of it. Even then, I think old Karl was a crackpot. He could not make a success of his own business. He could not support his own family; he was kicked out of every country in Europe. He had to go to the one free country, Great Britain, where he made the necessary studies to make that thing which was the bible of the Russian revolution. As to the point of the hon. member for Calgary West on the profit urge, the wages of profit, the salaries of profit, even some of the members of the House of Commons have said to me, "I think we should get a bigger sessional indemnity." I mean, that is a natural thing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us form a union.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is why the birds go south in the winter and north in the summer. It is just as simple as that. I was in Russia when they were paying 10 per cent on deposits and 10 per cent on government bonds. You talk about risk capital. One of the fundamental principles of Lenin was: Destroy the currency of a nation and a revolution is just around the corner. He went out

and did that deliberately, with the result that in order to build up their comparatively small industrial structure they had to start afresh. There is nothing new about that. They were paying that much interest to get people to save money.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. I am from the working class. When you destroy the middle classes of a nation you are down the drain. I am not underestimating the contribution of many of the people who have spoken this evening, particularly my good friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who was never a salaried employee of a trade union. He made his sacrifice and contribution to the miners in the maritime provinces. I have watched you struggle with your first union, and then your communist union and all that sort of thing down there until you got the powerful organization that you have today. I can say this also. You are one of the few districts in the united mine workers of America-probably the only one-where they still have democracy.
The hon. member for Calgary West was talking about John L. Lewis, who has made his contribution. What I like about Mr. Lewis is this. If it is yes, it is yes; if it is no, it is no. When he makes a contract he keeps it, with all his faults. However, I question the industrial statesmanship of any individual- and I am not speaking of any individual in particular at the moment-who can point a gun at a nation and get away with it, whether he be an employer or an employee. Lewis once said: "I cannot do anything with these Nova Scotia miners; they are democrats and Scotsmen; at least they claim to be." That is the later generation.
I am not going into the historical background, as the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Cape Breton South did, but there are certain things that I think we should remember. They are, bad money drives out good; money is timid; the law of diminishing returns, and don't be afraid of the machine. They are simple things; too simple. They like to make them complicated. There are four or five books in that sentence.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South talked about the machine. Not so long ago I was in one of the colonies. I do not like the word "colony." The governor asked me if I would meet the leader of the trade union congress there, which I did. I said: "What is your problem here?" He said: "They are introducing the bulldozer and the steam-shovel to build roads." I said: "What is wrong with that?" He said: "It will create unemployment." I said:	"What are you
doing now. How do you build your roads

now?" He said: "With wheelbarrows, pickaxes and shovels." I said: "Why not be logical and build with knives, forks and spoons, and you will all be rich." I said: "I come from a nation of 13 million people. It is not a country in the sense that most countries are countries; it is a continent, and we spanned that continent with steel and communications. We built schools, a judicial system and all these things that are so necessary to a civilized country and we let the machines do the work."
I can remember the day, I am sure most of us can, when I would not be wearing a union made suit like the one I have on at the present time which was made by Dave Dunkleman, an old friend of mine. I knew him as a worker in the trade. I paid $27.50 for this suit ten years ago, and it was made in a union shop with union help; but they could not have done it without the machine. Do not be afraid of the machine. Let the machine do the work. That is one of the reasons why we have such a high standard of living in the Dominion of Canada.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You have two suits a year, now.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, yes. The best things in life are free. You know that. My hon. friend talked about-


Agar Rodney Adamson: The second suit is free.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no. My hon. friend talked about the government not sending out labour organizers. That is what they did in Russia.


Clarence Gillis: I said I do not expect them to.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this clearly and with all the emphasis at my command. I am not suggesting that my hon. friend is following that kind of line; I have known him too long for that. But that was the implication in my hon. friend's remarks. In Russia of course the government runs the trade unions. They are the servants of the state. They are not free men as they are in North America. And that applies to other countries, and democratic countries, where the government calls the tune, where the trade union organizations are servants of the state. That was where the late Sam Gompers, whom my hon. friend talked about, showed more sense than any of them. He said: "Any trade union that gets tied up with a political organization will always live to regret the day that it got tied up with that organization."


Clarence Gillis: You are asking for trouble right now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I listened to my hon. friend. I say any political organization. I speak of
Supply-Labour
this party, the Social Credit party, and also the C.C.F. party. I believe in freedom. It is like the air you breathe. You do not miss it until it gets scarce. Do not let it get scarce.
There is another point, namely, seniority in connection with employment offices. Well, I always thought that an individual had the right to quit a job; that an employer had the right to fire a man. To me that is fundamental. The right to strike is fundamental; and that is implied in the employment offices. I like to go to whatever store I want to go to, to buy a pair of shoes, a hat or anything else. I do not think that my organization should tell an employer whom he should employ, or by the same token that my organization should tell an individual to take a job when he does not want to take that job. To me that is elementary and fundamental.
I believe the employment service should be based on service, service to the people of this nation. I often say to my people in the employment service: "It is only by the grace of God that you are not on the other side of the table." I say, "You may be the person who is out of work."
I deeply appreciate what both the previous speakers said about the organization in this department. I think that among us-I am not speaking in a party sense now, you understand-we have probably done as much in the last ten or fifteen years in this country as has been done by any other nation in a like period of time in furthering the interests of the great mass of people, whether they be agricultural, commercial or industrial, in the Dominion of Canada.
That was one point that was raised. The other was apprenticeship. In connection with apprenticeship, Mr. Chairman, I cannot quarrel with anything that has been said. I believe in it. The woods are full of Ph.D.'s and B.A.'s; but someone has to do the work. If you could erect buildings by making speeches I am certain that we could have erected many buildings in this House of Commons in the last three or four months. But you must have bricklayers, carpenters, plasterers, and so on all down the line, just as you must have miners. I speak now of what the hon. member for Calgary West said about miners. It is a difficult job to undertake. The dangers are great; the risks are great. I am a great believer in paying for the risk you take in an industry.
I want to say this very frankly if I may. I do not know whether it is safe to say this, but if I had to choose between being a lawyer and a bricklayer today, I would be a bricklayer.

Supply-Labour


Agar Rodney Adamson: Much better pay.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to pay a tribute to a man-I do not often mention people's names in the House of Commons, or friends- in connection with the establishment of apprenticeship in Canada. One is Joseph Pigott of Hamilton, the contractor, another is the late Jim Marsh, and another the late Tom Moore, who laid the foundation of understanding with the provinces in connection with the establishment of the apprenticeship system in Canada. It is true that in this day and age people do not go in for the trades, as they did when I was a young man, or when my hon. friend was a young man in Nova Scotia. There does not seem to be the urge to do it today that there was when we were younger.


Clarence Gillis: The machine has taken over; tradesmen are going out.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot see that point of view, I am frank to admit. We have more machines; let the machines do the work.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Two pairs of pants.


Humphrey Mitchell: And we have more suits, as my hon. friend from Simcoe North points out.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The two-pairs-of-pants county.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely. I am all for the machines. I remember when I was very closely associated with Sir Adam Beck in connection with the establishment of hydro in Ontario. They said, "You will never sell the power." It is true that Sir Adam tried to sell the power on every occasion, when we built at Queenston-but within three years there was a shortage.
The reason we enjoy this high standard of living in North America-and I am not going into figures-is because of the substitution of the machine for human labour. We cannot have a forty-hour week without the machine; let us be sensible about that. To my mind electrification is an elementary step. I would like to think that some of the countries in Europe and Asia had some of the advantages enjoyed by even the most lowly person-and I am not using that expression disrespectfully-in this country today.
About vocational training-


Clarence Gillis: I spoke about the machine in its relationship to unemployment. It is all right to talk about a high standard of living but 57,000 people unemployed in the maritime provinces have a pretty low standard of living, while the machine produces the profits. What are you going to do with
57,000	unemployed in the maritimes?
tMr. Mitchell.]


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not true; it is 13,000.*


Clarence Gillis: The figure changes-


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course they do. They are like the tides that rise and fall. Of course they change. Unemployment figures dropped over 100,000 in the last few weeks. You cannot pass laws in this House of Commons to stop the flooding of the Red river in Manitoba. Of course, they might promise to do that. You cannot pass laws to stop the flooding of the Fraser river. That is the only thing that has not been promised. Neither can we pass laws to change the weather. If you have a late season in British Columbia we all know it creates inescapable unemployment conditions. And so on, right 'across Canada. That was one of the reasons we established unemployment insurance-so ' that it would act as a cushion against that form of unemployment. I think probably we planned better than we knew. I am not taking credit for this party or government, although we did place that legislation on the statute books.
We live in a seasonal country where we are bound to have big shifts in employment in different seasons. I know that during the war, when I was in charge of manpower, I insisted that the farmers of this nation either put on uniforms or go into basic industries in the winter months. That worked out very well; most of them, I suppose, went into basic industries. However, that is beside the point.
When one talks about unemployment he must take that into account. He must remember that this is a cold and variable climate, and in the very nature of things we shall have ebbs and flows in unemployment conditions in Canada.
I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South in the matter of vocational training. It was established while I was minister. We trained 650,000 for war industry to supply the army and navy during the war, and we have trained many thousands since, on a co-operative basis with the provinces and municipalities. I hope we may continue to do that. I shall be glad to look into the situation in North Sydney about which the hon. member spoke. It is obvious that I do not know every community in Canada, but I do have a fair understanding of the general policy of my department and its relationship to provincial government and municipalities in that connection.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to keep the committee long, but I must say a few words on this subject. First of all let me say that in my opinion the Minister
*See also page 3846.

of Labour has done an excellent job in creating the machinery in Canada to a point where it has resulted in less labour and industrial strikes than anywhere else on the North American continent. For that he is to be commended.
However, there is a problem in connection with unemployment which members of the House of Commons appear to have overlooked. It is not long ago that we had about
420,000	unemployed in this country. That becomes a serious problem. It may be said that part of that was seasonal-and that would be true. But it is not going to remain a seasonal problem so long as we have such numbers as that. A portion of them will be more or less permanently unemployed.
It is my view that the federal government will have to take some responsibility for the maintenance and care of the employable unemployed. I do not believe the provinces are ever going to be in a position financially or otherwise, where they will be able to take care of any large-scale unemployment problems.
Only a few weeks ago I received word that in my own constituency there were 1,400 unemployed in the Drumheller coal-mining area. Coal-mining possibilities in western Canada are not as good as they used to be. Particularly since the war it is becoming more difficult to ship coal to eastern Canada so as to compete with coal coming in from the United States. We still ship in millions of tons from the United States, at a time when we have thousands of miners unemployed in this country. I suggest that the minister could assist the provinces in taking care of employable unemployed by establishing a national coal policy for Canada.
It is not my intention at this time to discuss a national coal policy, but it does seem to me somewhat ridiculous when we are so dependent upon the production of coal that we should allow that industry to deteriorate. In wartime Canada is dependent upon her coal industry being able and ready at all times to take care of the tremendous problems we are called upon to face in a time of emergency. It seems to me we should be doing everything possible to maintain that industry.
I suggest it is ridiculous that we should be importing millions of tons of coal when we have thousands of unemployed coal miners across the length and breadth of this country. In my judgment the provinces are not going to be able to take care of this problem. Alberta has been doing everything it could to build up industry within that province. The other western provinces and the maritimes are doing the same. For some reason or other
Supply-Labour
industry has been negligent-I use that word advisedly-in establishing itself in the two extreme parts of this dominion. It was my contention during the war, as it is yet, that we missed a great opportunity in not spreading our industry throughout the western provinces and the maritimes in order to take up this problem of unemployment in peacetime. Instead of that we concentrated all our industrial efforts in central Canada and that is where they have remained.
It is going to be exceedingly difficult to develop industry in the maritime provinces and the prairie provinces in view of the tremendous increase in freight rates just passed, some 45 per cent. Because of those increased freight rates an industrial barrier and tariff wall has been built around those provinces to make it impossible for us in the west to produce industrially and ship to the other provinces. This is going to present itself as a problem to the Minister of Labour when it is necessary to take care of the unemployed. I do not see how he can expect the provinces to carry this great burden on their shoulders.
It is true that at the present time the building industry in western Canada is absorbing a fairly large number of workers but we must remember that the building going on there is mainly the result of government financing under the national housing plan. There is comparatively little private building going on. And that is not a healthy sign, particularly in peacetime. Sooner or later the government is going to have to get out of the building business and when that happens there will be a tremendous drop in employment and our unemployment problem is going to be magnified to that extent.
In the past agriculture has been able to absorb a great many workers, particularly in harvest and seeding times, but agriculture has improved its methods and does not now require as many people to take off the crop. A moment ago the minister said that the modern machines are not displacing labour, but I think that is debatable. Certainly in the field of agriculture the modern machines which have been introduced have definitely decreased the number of employees. There used to be 15 or 20 men in a threshing crew but today the farmer and his son are able to do the whole operation.
The question today is: What are you going to do with the men who are being displaced by these machines? That is a problem we are going to have to face. They are going to have the same problem in the coal mines of western Canada as they have in Nova Scotia. What are you going to do with the men being displaced by modern machines?

Supply-Labour
I believe I could answer that question very effectively if the Chairman would allow me to explain the principles of Social Credit, but I know he would stop me and I shall leave that for another occasion.


An hon. Member:: Spare us.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hear an hon. member say, *"Spare us". If he can get up and tell us how he is going, to take care of the unemployed I shall be glad to have him do so. I am afraid that in British Columbia they are going to be faced with the same difficulty of taking care of men who are being displaced by the modern machines of today. In industry all across the country you find that problem. As I say, the Department of Labour is going to have to face that problem sooner or later.
It might be said that it can be solved by increasing family allowances. The Liberal party does not laugh at family allowances today, but the fact is that it was only after having been pressed to adopt them by the Social Crediters that they introduced family allowances. I congratulate the government on having had that much wisdom. Another thing causing trouble today for the unemployed is the high taxation being imposed upon the people by the federal government. This is not the fault of the Department of Labour particularly, but they must bear some of that responsibility. Unemployed people find it exceedingly difficult to pay the high prices being asked for the things that are necessary to maintain some semblance of a standard of living. That problem is going to become more magnified as time goes on.
It is all right to say that unemployment insurance is going to bridge the gap or that the supplementary payments that were introduced will help, but they were never intended to take care of permanent unemployed or employable unemployed. As the minister explained a few minutes ago, they are intended only to bridge the gap in seasonal unemployment. When you have five per cent cf your total labour force unemployed you have not a temporary or a seasonal problem, you have a permanent problem on your hands. When we have in the neighbourhood of
400,000	unemployed as we had a while ago- the figure is down now-that comes close to being what could be classed as a serious problem.
It is not my intention at this time to deal with some of the difficulties that face the unemployed people of Canada, because I could speak for an hour on that alone. In the discussion of the items we are given an opportunity to indicate how these problems may be solved and without keeping the committee any longer I shall conclude and save the rest of my remarks for the items.
[Mr. Johnston.}


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Calgary West is quite aware of the fact that the hon. member for Cape Breton South was handed a piece of paper on which were the results of the recent by-elections. When he saw the success of his party in those by-elections it probably accounted for his misinterpretation of the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West.
As an employer of labour I want to say to the minister that he and his department should leave no stone unturned in drawing to the attention of employers the advantages of sharing the profits of industry with labour and of making working conditions as attractive as possible. In my factory I find that when a man has been imbibing a little too freely the night before and brings a big head to the breakfast the old woman has got for him in the morning he finds he does not feel like doing anything. But if that man is able to get a cup of coffee and a sandwich at a cafeteria around ten o'clock he does good work from that time until twelve o'clock. When plants are made attractive with beautiful lawns and flower beds and when they have facilities such as cafeterias there is greater inducement for labour to work. The labouring man finds that he wants to do a better job when he is employed in a plant of that type. I believe the department could point out to management the benefits which accrue when working conditions are improved, and I am sure any such suggestions would be gladly adopted, to the benefit of both the employer and the employee. Some years ago the factories of Canada were not fit for pigs to live in, let alone for men to work in; but for any labour man to suggest that the improvement in working conditions has been brought about entirely through the efforts of the unions is ridiculous. No one can really believe that all employers are heartless. We know they have been scratching their heads and racking their brains for years, figuring ways to co-operate with the employees and improve their conditions.
We hope they will continue to develop new machines with which to provide four or five suits of clothes per annum for the minister. I believe he was speaking of a suit made by a tailor sitting cross-legged on the bench when he spoke of making a suit last for approximately seventeen years. With the cost of a suit of clothes made without machines, one would have to make it last for seventeen years in order to get his money out of it. We should encourage the development of machinery, the improvement of what we have and the creation of new machines so people may better enjoy the fruits of their labour and the productivity of this country. We may have to reduce the hours of work of

the individual. That will be a godsend if it can be done. Let us never try to stop the development of new machines, for each new machine creates work that will increase the privileges enjoyed by all classes in our country.


Mr. Thatcher:: I want to take only about three minutes to mention one specific matter. I brought it up last year and the minister could not see it, so I suppose he will not see it again this year. Nevertheless, at the request of the city council of Moose Jaw I am going to bring it to his attention again.
During the present session I have heard hon. members of all parties point out that unemployment is perhaps our major domestic problem, and I am inclined to agree. I want to lay one aspect of that problem before the minister tonight; that is the effect unemployment is having on municipal councils throughout the country. As has been pointed out already, a short time ago the number of unemployed passed the four hundred thousand mark. That is getting pretty high. Municipali-ities are viewing the situation with grave concern, because today the federal government pays no share of relief costs. Because of that fact many municipalities closed their financial books in 1949 with deficits for the first time in many years.
As city aldermen, reeves, mayors and others look at this problem they cannot help recalling the difficult times they had in the last depression, and wondering whether or not they were going to be faced with the same difficulties in the near future. In my own city of Moose Jaw just before the war, for instance, six thousand people out of twenty thousand were on direct relief. That was a strain which in large part had to be borne by the city council. During the last few years, because of the war, the revenues of the municipalities have been fairly buoyant and they have managed to get in better condition; but they are still in no better shape to meet heavy relief costs today than they were during the depression years. I know the minister will reply at once that since that time we have brought in the Unemployment Insurance Act, which of course I admit. But that legislation has shortcomings. It does not cover everyone; the period of benefits is limited; and because of the high cost of living many people receiving those benefits cannot get along on them. As a result the welfare organizations and municipal councils are having to bear a heavy share of relief costs.
As I said a moment ago, I pointed out this situation last December. At that time there were about 220,000 unemployed in the country, and I remember the minister rather
Supply-Labour
chided me for mentioning the word "depression". I quote from page 2670 of Hansard for December 3, 1949:
The trouble with people who express such opinions is that they are afraid the sun will not shine tomorrow morning ... I think the best thing to ensure bad conditions in the country is to keep on talking about them.
I would remind the minister and the committee that a few months after he made that statement the number of unemployed in this country had doubled. It seems to me that if the minister persists in such an attitude and continues to ignore this problem he could be accused of acting like the proverbial ostrich. It does not seem to me you can solve a problem by ignoring it, but I believe that is what the minister is trying to do in this instance. Relief costs sent many municipalities into bankruptcy once, and I am afraid it could easily happen again. I hope a depression will not come, but I think we should benefit by our past experience and make ready for it.
Then, too, I believe the attitude of the government today is quite different to its attitude when the white paper of 1945 was issued. I believe it was the minister who presented that matter to the conference, and at pages 102 and 103 of the green book he said, in reference to unemployment insurance:
The coverage is incomplete and the duration of the payments is limited, so that provincial governments and municipalities may feel that they are still subject to the possibility of heavy relief problems if unemployment on a substantial scale should develop.
Then he went on:
As part of the general arrangement with the provincial governments, the dominion government now proposes to establish a practicable and comprehensive system of assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the need for it actually arises.
Apparently in 1945 the government was impressed with the need of deciding immediately on a plan to handle relief, instead of waiting until the emergency should arise; and I should like to know why it has apparently changed its mind now, at a time when the crisis could be nearer than we think. I say relief is a federal responsibility. If we have unemployment, to a considerable extent at least it is due to federal policies. The only government that could really do something about it is the federal government. Unless we give these municipalities more powers of taxation we are going to have to pay at least a portion of the relief costs; otherwise many municipalities will again face bankruptcy. A few days ago Mr. J. S. Marquis, city commissioner of Moose Jaw, wrote me a letter from which I should like to quote one paragraph:
There is every indication that the relief problem will increase in Moose Jaw rather than diminish,


Supply-Labour
and unless the federal government can be persuaded to assume this responsibility in regard to unemployed employables, Moose Jaw is headed for a similar financial disaster which overtook us in the depression days. This time, however, we cannot last very long.
I suggest that this letter speaks lor many municipalities in Canada. Tonight the hon. member for Cape Breton South said there were five thousand unemployed in his city. That is a financial load the city government cannot carry. Tonight I challenge the minister and the government to carry out some of the suggestions they made in the 1945 white paper. I challenge them to pay at least a fair share of relief costs in future; and I challenge them to place this matter on the agenda of the dominion-provincial conference when it reassembles this fall.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether my hon. friend is aware of it, but there is still a provincial government in Saskatchewan.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes, and it is paying fifty per cent of the cost of relief, while the federal government is paying nothing.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my hon. friend. Through unemployment insurance this government last year disbursed, in round figures, more than $85 million. I know I gave the figure for the recent drop in unemployment. From the peak there has been a drop of about 200,000 registered at the employment offices. We have the largest employment figures in the history of the dominion, even considering the peak during the war. For the life of me, I cannot understand these calamity howlers who seem to get delight out of predicting bad times. One of the previous speakers mentioned the coal mining industry in Alberta. There are more men employed in the coal mining industry in Alberta than ever before.


Charles Edward Johnston: That does n,ot help unemployment now.


Humphrey Mitchell: There also are more men employed in the mining industry in Nova Scotia than have ever been employed in that industry. Those are the facts. I remember the experts, my own experts-God knows, the woods are full of experts; always look out for a person who is running around with a big briefcase under his arm-predicted we would have 600,000 people out of employment the year after Japan was defeated. In Washington the figure for the United States was 8 million. I was convinced we would have a boom, and we have had a boom. This country was never richer than it is at the moment. I believe that there will be a scarcity of workers by the middle of July. I believe that, and I hope that what I believe turns out to be true.

Some members have spoken of the construction industry. Have you ever tried to hire a carpenter, bricklayer, painter, or plumber or anyone else engaged in the construction industry to do some work in your own home? Try to do it, and see how long you have to wait. I am glad to see this condition, and I hope there will always be a scarcity of labour because it is an indication that people are working. My hon. friend is talking about relief. All he is trying to do is to bridge the gap between agriculture and labour in one political party. It cannot be done. It has been tried by better and bigger people. I would rather see butter at a good price and have a dollar in my pocket to buy a pound, than see it selling at fifteen or twenty cents, as I have seen it, with nothing in my pocket at all. Let us be sensible about these things.
I know it is pleasant to go out on the hustings and talk about these things. My hon. friend was talking about machines. I can remember the day when there was no automobile industry in Canada, the United States, or Great Britain. There was some talk about machines displacing labour. Thank goodness there is an automobile industry in North America today, as well as in Britain, since she is so short of American dollars. Last year when my hon. friend brought up this question about Moose Jaw, I asked him how many unemployed there were in that area. I mentioned a moment ago that bad money drives out good. I would not invest a dollar in the province of Saskatchewan at this very moment. When you talk about risk capital-


Charles Edward Johnston: Why not?


Humphrey Mitchell: Because I would not, that is why.


Clarence Gillis: The Canadian National Railways is investing there, and that is a government institution.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But they have to go through the place to get somewhere else.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am speaking now as an individual, not as a member of the government. As a rule governments do most business things in reverse, and I am making no exception of my hon. friend when he was premier of Ontario. They do it in reverse because-well, you talk about government ownership of this and that. Take a look at it in the glass, or have a look at yourself in the glass when you are trying to convince yourself of the opposite argument. As I said once before, when you know someone is stupid, for goodness' sake take a look in the glass. I am convinced of this, Mr. Chairman, that by the middle of this summer we shall have

the tightest labour situation in the history of this dominion. I know that, from some people's point of view, it is unfortunate that the unemployment figures have dropped 200,000 from the peak. From some people's point of view it is not the thing to talk about when you are out on the stump. It is an actual fact, however. I do not give credit to the government for that, because it is due to the resiliency, ingenuity and driving force of the Canadian people and their co-operation with the government.
My friends were talking about the machines. If machines produced bad living conditions, then India or China would be the best countries in which people could live. The thing those countries lack is the mechanical genius that we have on the North American continent; that is as simple as simple arithmetic. The member for Moose Jaw thought conditions were going to be bad last year.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They were very bad during the past winter, I may say.


Humphrey Mitchell: When I asked my hon. friend if he knew how many people were being affected, he did not know. He was then in a mental haze.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have told you now.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to have the figure. I know that if I lived in Moose Jaw I would know the figure.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I shall be glad to give the minister the figure. A short time ago it was more than 1,200 in the city alone. I do not wish to be unfair, but I do not think the minister has yet given an answer. He has given the house a series of platitudes during the evening, such as, air is free, and we should have machines. He still has not given us the answer to which I think we are entitled.
I understand that in 1945 the governments believed that, so far as municipalities were concerned, it was feasible for the federal government to pay a portion of the relief costs, despite anything the minister says. If we do not have unemployment, that will be fine. Everybody will be happy. [DOT] But in case we do have it, what is he going to do for the municipalities? Is he going to make up additional tax revenue so they can pay for relief costs, or is the federal government going to pay at least a third or a half, as they did before the war?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall give my hon. friend an answer. It is not the federal government, the municipality or the provincial government that pays, it is you and I.
Supply-Labour


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Fine.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is what I thought.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: As the agent of you and me, will you pay your third of these costs?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend should know, he is old enough to know, that municipalities are the children of the provincial government; that is where they get their charter.


An hon. Member:: I have heard that before.


Humphrey Mitchell: Someone says he has heard
that before. I say, let it sink in. The federal government, in my memory, and 1 think I have had some experience in these matters, has never dealt directly with the municipalities.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is a technicality, if I
may say so. If you want to give the grants to the provinces, that is all right.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a moment now; I suffered you, now you suffer me. My hon. friends says that is a technicality. Of course the British North America Act is a technicality. The mere fact that the municipalities get their powers from the provincial governments is a technicality. I hope they will always get those powers, because I am a great believer in the decentralization of power. The best kind of government is the government that gets closest to the people. When my hon. friend goes across the country and says, "Let the federal government pay," that is the easiest thing in the world to say. The federal government pays nothing. You and I pay, and the people to whom you are talking. It is just a matter of which cash register it comes from, whether it is the federal, provincial, or municipal. That is sensible; it is not a technicality. Two and two are still four, although sometimes my hon. friend thinks they make five.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is the minister then saying
that the federal government at this time still will not pay any share of relief costs, whether it is to the provincial government or the municipality?


Humphrey Mitchell: No. You are not getting my neck in that noose.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am just trying-


Humphrey Mitchell: Just wait a minute; just sit down. As my hon. friend well knows, there is to be a conference thiS fall. I assume that this is still a free country. I assume that the provinces will raise certain questions, questions of principle and such like. What will happen there, I do not know.


Mr. Noseworlhy:: Mr. Chairman, I enjoy these speeches by the minister so much-

Supply-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may interject something here, may I say that I do not think I have spoken forty minutes altogether since this session opened.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why not? I like it.


Humphrey Mitchell: You like it. So do I. That is all right. But do not try to imply that I take up a lot of time in this chamber. I have more sense than that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I was not implying that the minister was taking up too much time in this debate or saying too much. I simply stated that I enjoy listening to the minister, and I hope that I can provoke him to give another speech before these estimates are concluded. I realize that I shall be called a calamity howler by the minister. As to these thousands of people who suffered from the Red river flood a few months ago, by the same analogy that the minister used I submit that he might just as easily have charged them with being calamity howlers, when they urged upon their government the necessity of taking steps to prevent a repetition of that disaster, as charge those 425,000 unemployed seasonally last winter with calamity howling for asking the government-


Humphrey Mitchell: You cannot put those words into my mouth in this committee. I have never suggested for one moment that the people my hon. friend is referring to were calamity howlers. I never even suggested that he was one. While I am on my feet, I should like to give to the hon. member for Moose Jaw the figure for which he asked. There are 754.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes. There were over 1,200 at Moose Jaw.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know. You do not like to hear that.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The city council had to pay relief.


Humphrey Mitchell: You do not like to hear good news.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I like very much to hear good news; but the city council had to pay relief costs of 1,200 people, for those who were unemployed; and they will have, to do the same thing next winter unless the minister does something.
Mr. Nose worthy:	I heard the minister
implying the term' "calamity howlers" to those who were discussing the unemployment situation as it existed last winter, and I took it for granted that I would likely be classified in that group. I shall feel disappointed that the minister does not confer upon me the honour of including me with those so-called calamity howlers. After all, there were some

425.000	Canadians who suffered from unemployment last winter, whether it was seasonal or whatever it was. Those people are anxious to know if any steps are being taken to avoid a repetition of that situation again next winter. I suggest to the minister that it is not howling calamity to ask the government just what steps are being taken to avoid a repetition of that situation.
I should like to put to the minister a few questions. He may please himself whether he answers them or not. If I cannot get the answers from the minister, then i shall proceed to put them on the order paper for the officials of his department to find answers to them for me. In 1945 the government adopted a policy of full employment. It announced that full employment was a major objective of its policy. That same policy was announced in the election of 1945 and again in the election of 1949. During this debate I should like the minister to tell us whether or not that is still the policy of this government, and whether it accepts full employment as one of its major objectives, as it indicated it did in 1945 and in 1949. If so, I should like the minister to indicate just what his department or the government means by the term "full employment", and just what is implied. Is it a matter of 425,000 unemployed and still full employment? Or 500,000? Or just what is the government's definition of that term "full employment"?


Humphrey Mitchell: Do you want that answered right away?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want the minister, if he wishes, to tell us whether or not the government has considered the setting up of any specific target in terms of the percentage of the labour force that would be unemployed before any special action should be taken by the government to increase employment. I want him to tell us whether that question has been considered. I say that because I recall listening to the Prime Minister during the 1949 election campaign in Toronto, when he was questioned on that point. Finally, when the reporter who questioned him got up to the 500,000 mark and said "Would you consider
500.000	enough unemployed to warrant the government's taking special action?" the Prime Minister said, "Oh, yes, if we ever reached the stage of having 500,000 unemployed, certainly the government would take some direct action". Apparently we did not reach the figure of 500,000 unemployed, at least according to the figures registered with the unemployment service. We did get fairly close to it, however. I wonder if the minister could tell us just where the government considers that unemployment has reached a point

which warrants its taking some special action in order to increase employment. Can the minister tell us just what that point is?
Also during the 1945 and 1949 campaigns we heard about a shelf of public works projects that the government was to have in readiness when unemployment warranted it. I should like to know if the government still adheres to that policy of timed investment; that investing of public moneys in public buildings and projects when employment is slack; that entire theory of timed investment, including the concept of the shelf of public works projects to be in readiness when and if unemployment is serious enough to warrant increased public expenditure. If the government is still following or adhering to that policy-and I have heard rumours that the shelf has been abandoned- then possibly the minister could tell us how many projects are ready; for how many plans have already been prepared; how many men would be employed in those projects; and for what period of time they would be employed. If he could enlighten us as to when these specific projects can be undertaken, or under what conditions they would be undertaken, I think he would clear up a good deal of misunderstanding on the part of the public on the whole question of unemployment and the government's responsibility.
Then we heard from the minister and others that our unemployment last year was just seasonal. We blamed God for it or the weather for it; we blamed anybody but the government. It was a seasonal problem. Can the minister inform us during the course of this debate whether or not the government has a policy designed to counteract such seasonal unemployment next year? Has the government any plans to avert a repetition of another possible 425,000 becoming unemployed? If so, I am sure the minister will want to tell us what that policy is, and just what action is being taken to prevent a repetition.
Then of course, what was not seasonal unemployment last year was regional unemployment. That was a phrase we heard mentioned a number of times. It was not a general condition which warranted any action on the part of the government; but just in case that regional unemployment should recur next year, has the government any policy designed to counteract such a repetition of regional unemployment? What is that policy; and just what has the government in mind to avert such a repetition?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will take only five minutes on this. I do not think we ever used the phrase "full employment." "High employment" was the phrase used.
Supply-Labour


Joseph William Noseworthy: High employment was used in the white paper and the green book.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am talking about the phrase I used, I do not care about the white paper.
I thought I explained the shelf of public works earlier in the evening. As I say, there is a great scarcity of building trades mechanics in Canada. Every one of us knows that. I do not see any reason for setting in motion a policy of public works of that nature when we cannot get the mechanics to do the work.
My hon. friend uses the word scientific. That is a nice word. It gets you out of many difficulties. All one has to do is to say he is [DOT]a scientist. He may be the only one who thinks he is. I do not look upon human beings as fence posts, like some of these who talk about the scientific adjustment of the manpower problem of the nation. I like to look upon them as human beings like ourselves, as they are. Take the province of Ontario, my hon. friend's province. There has been a drop of 51,000 in the unemployment figures since March. It was 102,000; it is now down to 51,000.
I do not know that I should use this word, but this is what they call frictional unemployment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is a new one.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is estimated that about 2 per cent of any industrial nation-I am speaking of free countries of course-are in that condition. It is brought about by men changing from one job to another, by men trying to get a better job than they are working at at the present time. That is the natural thing to do. Obviously, they register for employment with the employment offices. We estimate that in the dominion there are about 120,000 in that category.
My hon. friend talks about regional unemployment. You are bound to have that. Take the Chrysler strike in Detroit. It threw 9,000 out of employment in Ontario. You get floods in Winnipeg, which have created a temporary unemployment situation there. That is why I talked about the weather and all that sort of thing earlier in my estimates. We cannot control these things.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is not what I asked.


Humphrey Mitchell: It may not have been what you thought, but that is what you asked.


Mr. Argue:: Who is putting words in whose mouth?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend-


Joseph William Noseworthy: I asked a very definite question.

Supply-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: I could not put any words in my hon. friend's mouth, because he talks so much about so little.


Hazen Robert Argue: Speak for yourself.


Humphrey Mitchell: That goes for the war years, too.
I was talking to the hon. member for York South; I was trying to answer him. I do not know that you can cure that. It is like trying to push back the ocean. I remember that during the war when this department had control of manpower it was comparatively simple. I could, through my department, say to a person: This is where you will work, and this is what you will do. But as I have said before, I am opposed to that policy in peacetime. I believe in freedom. If a person wants to live in Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick or in any province of Canada, it is his business and not the business of any government. It is the easiest thing in the world for the state to give direction. Thank goodness, the British have just dropped direction by the state. If you have direction of human beings in peacetime it is the easiest thing in the world to slip into a dictatorship. It is the easiest thing in the. world for the government to say that you shall go to such and such a place. If I had the power I might say to the hon. member for York South and to some of the other hon. members: I think you are wasting your time in this House of Commons; you ought to be down in a coal mine, or laying brick or whatever the case may be, where they is a shortage. But a Liberal government, sensible governments at least, do not take that view, and I hope we shall never take that view in this Dominion of Canada. We cannot control the weather, not yet.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I did not ask you to.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, but you are suggesting it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: No, I did not.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know it. My hon. friend was a schoolteacher. He talks about regional unemployment. I am not being critical over this dispute in Detroit. I am not passing any comment whatever on one side or the other in connection with it. There was a strike in the Chrysler industry in Detroit, with the result that 9,000 people were laid off in Ontario. We have no control over that.
I say to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that I was in Pennsylvania not long ago and I saw that many of the locomotives that were drawing coal out of the coal pits were diesel electric. That is what I call the law of diminishing returns.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What was diminished?


Humphrey Mitchell: You price yourself out of the market. It is just as simple as that. The best

oil salesman in North America is John L. Lewis. I am not being critical of Lewis, you understand, but that is obvious to the average person. You do not need salesmen to sell oil burners these days. What I call industrial salesmanship is where both sides get together and see to it that they are not priced out of the market, because the consumer calls the tune whether you like it or not. I think I have explained that pretty clearly. I think that is the best argument in favour of unemployment insurance. Apart from the social benefits which have accrued in this nation, money has been set in circulation, and unemployment insurance has increased the velocity of money. It is far better to have it that way than to have it the way it was in the depression years when many of us were close to that situation.
If my hon. friend wants me to give him a cure for all that, and to tell him whether we are going to have an early spring or a late spring-well, he will have to get one of his socialist governments to tell him that, because this one cannot, and neither can any other government.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I asked the minister some very definite and serious questions. Of those questions he answered one, and one only. I asked him if it was still the policy of this government to maintain full employment. I asked him what this government meant by full employment. I asked him if the government was still abiding by the practice of a shelf of projects. That is the only question he answered by indicating that the government had abandoned that idea at this time. I asked if there was any government policy to counteract a repetition of seasonal unemployment next year. I did not ask him to regulate the seasons or the weather. I asked him if his government had any power to counteract or to avoid seasonal unemployment next winter. He has not answered either of those questions yet.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I give up!


Joseph William Noseworthy: Answer them.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can answer them. Good gracious, I think I have a measure of common sense.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Political sense.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend does not need to worry about political sense. When it comes to politics, I have nothing on him, you understand-and I speak of politics in its broader sense.


Mr. Hansell:: They do not go together.


Humphrey Mitchell: I tell my hon. friend there is no government in any free country that can guarantee full employment. The trouble with my hon. friends is that they want the government to push people around.


Joseph William Noseworthy: No; cannot the government have a policy?


John Lambert Gibson: Better get a salt mine.


Humphrey Mitchell: Look here, you are an older man than I am-or about the same age, I hope. The hon. member certainly remembers after the first war the difficulties, trials and tribulations we went through. I think it is a reasonable assumption that we came out of this war in better shape-perhaps I should not say that; certainly we came out of it in as good shape as any country in the world. The government does not take all the credit for it. True, we had the machinery, and we have the experience that made possible that tremendous shift in manpower. When I tell my hon. friend this, that we placed over a million people in six months in this country through the employment service, he will know what I mean. And that was done on the basis of freedom-freedom, you understand.
You have to remember this: As sure as the sun will rise in the morning, when you start talking about pushing people around it is not long before you have the kind of government I hope we shall never see in this country.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Well-


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute, now. I am
not suggesting my hon. friend wants that kind* of government at all.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I did not say a word
about it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not suggesting my hon. friend does. But, lead kindly light, amid the encircling gloom-and a little child shall lead them.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Daniel in the lion's den.


Humphrey Mitchell: This idea of going out and
telling the people that you can hold back the ocean if only they will elect you is the easiest thing in the world. My hon. friend has asked me a question, and I have answered it satisfactorily-at least from my own point of view.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister has not
answered it at all. I asked him about the policy of the Canadian government to counteract or to meet any recurrence of unemployment, seasonal or regional, in the winter months.


John Lambert Gibson: Get a salt mine.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the minister any
policy to meet that recurring situation next winter? He has not answered that question.


Humphrey Mitchell: Look here, you are not going to stick my neck in that noose and get away with it. The world is full of that kind of thing. But not me-not yet, anyway. I have
Supply-Labour
told the hon. member that there is no government-and my young friend snickers; he will be a great help to his mother some day when he grows up-no government that can control the elements. The question my hon. friend asks is a debatable, legal question. It cannot be answered. I do not know- there may be some kind of strike or some kind of flood, or too much snow, or not enough snow-all sorts of things. But you fight that through the instrumentality of unemployment insurance, of which we disbursed $85 million last year. Certainly that is an advance over what took place prior to the establishment of that legislation. My hon. friend can make all the rosy speeches he likes. But there is the old saying that you can fool the people some of the time, but not all of the time. I think I have been among the working people of this country long enough to know that you have got to speak plainly to them. They have a fair understanding of the basic principles that make the-clock tick in the Dominion of Canada.


Clarence Gillis: Just to break this thing up:
someone over here has suggested that if we have any idea as to what could be done, we should state it. The minister tonight is doing exactly what representatives of Canada did before the United Nations committee that, was set up specifically to deal with this question of unemployment. Canada is a member of the United Nations. That body selected a committee of experts just a few months ago to ascertain what might be done in any country by way of relieving unemployment. The committee laid down a series of specific recommendations. The Canadian representative made no commitments in the matter.
The minister may talk as much as he likes about pushing anyone around. But if he will look at the photographs which appeared in the Globe and Mail and in the Montreal papers last winter, showing hundreds of men with no place to sleep, huddled around in improvised shelters in Montreal and Toronto, he would know what the unemployment was. Is that not being economically pushed around? Many of those men were sailors and soldiers who fought in the last war. That is being pushed around economically, whether you like it or not.
The United Nations committee recommended that each government in each country should decide what it considered full employment in that country to be. That is the question which the minister has deliberately evaded this evening. He has not said what the government considered full employment in Canada to be. Secondly, the United Nations committee of experts said that in

Supply-Labour
their opinion an unemployment problem in any country was dangerous when it reached over five per cent of the total employable population. It recommended that when that point was reached a government should implement public works programs for purposes of relieving the condition. Secondly, they should immediately supplement their social security benefits or inaugurate new ones, and then try to keep the purchasing power in the hands of the people. Those three simple recommendations were made by the UN committee just a few months ago, but the representative from Canada took exactly the same position the minister takes tonight, that we have no idea of what constitutes unemployment and we will not accept the recommendations of the committee.
There has been talk of this being a case of pushing people around. I do not consider that any government that takes an interest in the unemployed to the extent that they will direct them to where they may secure employment in some other part of the country is pushing people around. During the war and the aftermath of the war that was done by the government and it was appreciated by the people in the areas affected. What about the d.p.'s? We send teams all over Europe and spend money in psychoanalyzing a lot of people-


Humphrey Mitchell: Not me.


Clarence Gillis: The government does and the minister definitely is part of the government set-up. We provide transportation from Europe to different parts of Canada and help these people to get employment. They do not consider that the government is pushing them around. They consider it a humanitarian gesture on the part of the government of Canada. That is appreciated by the people of Canada and by those affected.
Let us not forget that when you have a pocket of unemployment in any part of Canada you have people who are displaced in the community. It does not matter how small the group is, you have that effect. If there are only 750 people unemployed in Moose Jaw, which has a population of two or three thousand, there is a pretty high percentage of unemployed. Those 700 unemployed are suffering just as much as though there were 15,000 unemployed. Instead of making light of it or arguing along the lines the minister has been arguing, we should be studying this problem and deciding to do what we can about it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wonder if I might answer that now. There is nobody or no department that is carrying out a more continuous study

of this problem than the department over which I preside. When I tell you that
1,700,000	people passed through the employment offices last year it will give you some indication of what is being done. We have moved people up and down the country in co-operation with the provinces in an effort to provide needed farm help. When we realize what the position was ten years ago I think it must be conceded that we have done reasonably well.
I do not want the impression to get out that the government is treating this matter lightly, or that I am. We are just as much interested in it as my hon. friend. If he has any suggestions he should let us have them because all the sense is not on this side of the chamber.


Clarence Gillis: I have already made several suggestions and they will appear on Hansard. I know that you people read Hansard. I realize that the department is broken up into different sections and I am in hopes that someone will read what I have suggested and something will come out of it. A country like Canada should not have any unemployment problem. The whole world is crying for the production of this continent. There are difficulties in connection with currencies jind that kind of thing, but the fact remains that New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain-the minister's department has the figures-have no unemployment problem. There is no reason why Canada should have unemployment.
You may relieve the condition temporarily in Ontario and Quebec and perhaps on the prairies and in British Columbia, but that is not possible in the part of the country that I represent. They have had a continuous unemployment problem for a long time. In most cases unemployment insurance has run out and is of no help now. The supplementary benefits have been of some assistance. Something in the way of public works will have to be inaugurated, as I believe that is the immediate solution to this problem.
It is wrong to just try to brush this off by saying that people do not want to be pushed around. I would not consider I was being pushed around if someone told me where I might get a job and gave me some help to get to that job. I think the minister's department has done an excellent job, but for the last few years I have felt that restrictions have been placed on that department and that it is not doing all the things it is capable of doing with the personnel there is there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will continue with estimates, Department of Labour, national health and welfare, Secretary of State, transport, Postmaster General and justice.


Mr. Fleming:: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: So far as the first two are concerned, labour and national health and welfare.


[Stage Direction]
Business of the House At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-General administration-
150.	Departmental administration, $540,260.
3845
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 20, 1950