1950-03-21

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to refer to a report in the press of what I said yesterday in the house concerning the Easter recess. A Canadian Press dispatch, referring to the request I made yesterday for information as to the date on which the house will rise, states:
Opposition parties indicated in the Commons today they would prefer a longer Easter recess than that suggested by the government.
The report then goes on to refer to my comments on the subject. I should like to point out that I did not ask for a longer recess. The exact words I used were:
No matter what the length of the recess may be, I suggest to the government that this is a fairly obvious consideration . . .
I was referring to the fact that members would wish to be home in the week before Easter. I wish to make it quite clear that the remarks I made did not involve any suggestion of a longer recess, but were directed to the fact that members living some distance away should know what period the recess will include. I also urged that the week before Easter should be made available to enable members to get home in time to make any necessary arrangements before Easter.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make a statement on the orders of the day, but as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has raised the question at this time, I think perhaps I should make it now.
I understand that the desire was expressed to have a definite announcement as to what it is intended to propose for the Easter holiday. Since my return this morning I have received a report from our whip of his conversations with the whips of the other groups in the house. I find that among the other groups there is a decided preference for an adjournment that would start on Wednesday afternoon, the 5th of April, at six o'clock, and extend to the Monday after Easter week. In other words, the adjournment would be
from Wednesday, the 5th of April, at six o'clock, until Monday, the 17th of April, at three o'clock. This takes away one full day, but I understand that it would be much more convenient for quite a large number who wish to get home for Good Friday. I think it is; fair to assume that it will lie the desire of the house to have that done, and to proceed in the meantime in such a way so that we shall feel we have done those things which have to be done before rising for Easter. There are, for instance, four bills for which resolutions now appear on the order paper having to do with acts which expire on the 31st of March. One to which great importance is attached is that having to do with rent control. This is a very simple matter; it will provide for the extension of the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, but it will apply only to rent control. Then there is a bill to extend the time during which prices support may be provided for agricultural products, and another for the same purpose for fisheries products. There is also a bill to extend the period during which the Agricultural Products Act shall remain in force. These are matters as to which there would be serious embarrassment, chaotic embarrassment, if a final decision were not made about them before March 31.
There are three motions to set up committees which I understand most hon. members would like to see set up and organized so that, if not much can be done before Easter with respect to their work, they will be able to function as soon as we come back after Easter. They are the committees on old age security, radio broadcasting, and railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. I would hope that we could have these matters disposed of so that the respective committees may be organized and be in a position when we return to carry out expeditiously their terms of reference.
I do not think I need make my declaration conditional, however. At this time, trusting to the good will of hon. members, I will undertake to place on the order paper a notice of motion that when the house adjourns on the afternoon of April 5 it shall stand adjourned until three o'clock on Monday, April 17.

Proposed Legislation DEFENCE SERVICES PENSIONS



METHOD OF COMPUTATION-CREATION OF SERVICE PENSION BOARD

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Militia Pension Act for the purpose of changing the title to "The Defence Services Pension Act"; removing anomalies and improving administration; changing the method of computing pensions and gratuities and establishing a service pension board to pass on requisitions for payment of pensions and gratuities.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money out of prize money presently and prospectively in the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what payments will be made by the government to the farmers on barley and oats, and when?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that at this time a statement on the whole position of payments from the grain pools should be made, and I shall make that statement now.
Last week I stated in reply to a question on the orders of the day that it had been decided not to make a further interim payment on the five-year wheat pool, but that a final payment would be made as promptly as possible after the end of the crop year. An additional payment now would have to be distributed over some 1,400 million bushels

of wheat, involving some 1,350,000 separate cheques. The cost of making such a payment is estimated at roughly $500,000. Opposition members have charged the government with having made too large interim payments in previous years, and everything considered, it seems desirable to make one further payment when the final out-turn of the five-year pool is known.
It has also been decided to make only one further payment, that is, a final payment on the oats and barley pools. This payment will be made after the end of the crop year, as soon as sales have been completed of all the oats and barley delivered to the pools.
At this time, however, I believe that I should give some indication of what might be expected by way of a final payment from these pools. Any such forecast is dependent, of course, upon a number of factors, principally the course of market prices until the balance of the 1949 crop deliveries can be sold. There are still oats and barley on farms remaining to be delivered to this year's pools, and the sooner producers can get the grain they intend to sell delivered to country elevators, the greater the possibility of the board's taking advantage of the existing market in making sales and the sooner the transactions may be closed out at the end of the crop year in order to permit a final payment. Depending upon all these circumstances, and without in any sense making a commitment that payments will be made at these levels, I think it desirable that producers should know that, based on present prospects, I now estimate final payments at 10 cents per bushel on oats, 40 cents per bushel on the feed grades of barley and 50 cents per bushel on the malting grades.
These payments may appear low compared with present market levels, but it must be recognized that sales prices were much lower earlier in the season and any merchandising organization like the Canadian wheat board must sell steadily throughout the year. Any other sales policy would not be acceptable. If current prices hold and it is possible for the board to sell the balance of the pool stocks at current levels, then the final prices realized will be higher than present estimates.
Had it been decided to make interim payments now, the amounts would have had to be set at lower levels as a matter of ordinary precaution. Rather than make smaller payments at the present time, the available surpluses will be used by the board as working capital in reducing the amounts borrowed from the banks. As I mentioned earlier, opposition members have expressed a preference for using the surpluses accumulating in the pools in this way.

In stating the prospective final payments from these pools, I have done so with the purpose of giving all producers participating in these pools an idea of where they stand with respect to their further income. I also have in mind that this information should help those producers who require credit in connection with seeding to make any necessary arrangements with their banks.
Once again I should like to emphasize the need for early deliveries from farms, and I would urge producers who have wheat, oats or barley still to be delivered to get this grain into the elevators at the earliest opportunity. There is a good demand for early shipment of all these grains; some sales will be lost if the grain is held back and some have been lost through lack of grain in position. Moreover, as I have already mentioned, early delivery of these grains will facilitate the closing out of the pools and expedite the final payments in that connection.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: One point I should like to make clear is that no member of this party ever complained about the payments made last year. I should like to have that clearly understood.


Mr. Chevrier:: Ask your question.


James Arthur Ross: The question is this: Could the minister include the wheat payments in his estimate along with those coarse grains? Many more farmers are interested in the wheat payment than in the coarse grains payment.
I have another question based on a press report, with regard to the wheat council, which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 17. It reads as follows:
Wheat council O.K.'s Germany; defers Japan. U.S. to supply. Attlee also states that Canada and U.S.A. took the lead in these proposals.
Will the minister now give us some further information on this arrangement, and indicate what if any benefits will accrue to Canada with respect to markets for wheat? In view of the foregoing, will he give us an estimate of future wheat payments, since that will affect many more farmers than will the coarse grains payments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the first question, I am not in a position to estimate the final payment on wheat. There are factors involved that are not known at this time.
With regard to the international wheat agreement, perhaps I could read a dispatch from our representatives at the council meeting. It reads as follows:
The international wheat council held the final meeting of its second session in London on March 15, when it considered the applications of both Germany and Japan to accede to the international wheat agreement.
Wheat and Coarse Grains
The request made by Germany, involving a guaranteed quantity of 1,800,000 metric tons per year commencing with the current crop year, was approved subject to instruments of accession being deposited by April 30, 1950, and to conditions normally required of countries acceding to the agreement.
In the case of Japan, it was found that further time was necessary for the consideration of the issues involved. It was decided, therefore, to defer further consideration of this application until a later session of the council, which it is anticipated will probably take place before the end of the current crop year which ends July 31, 1950.
The following are the agreed shares of the German quantity:
1949/50	1950/51	1951/52	1952/53
United
States 66,138,678 Canada ... Nil Australia .. Nil France .... Nil
54,328,345 48.328,345 8,000,000 16.000,000 3,333,333	3,333,333
477,000	477,000
44,328,345
18,000,000
3,333,333
477,000
I may say that when Japan accedes, the Canadian allotment will go up to 27 million bushels, which brings us back to the 230 million bushels which in earlier discussions was considered to be Canada's fair share of world wheat markets.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Will the minister allow one further question in connection with this matter? I am thinking particularly of the drought areas in Saskatchewan and the difficulty the farmers there would have in securing credit, even on the basis outlined by the minister. Will he consider having an interim payment made in those areas affected by the drought? The identification is clear, and all that would be necessary would be for the farmers to send in their tickets. I am afraid this announcement will be disappointing to those who need the money for spring work and are unable to secure credit. I offer this suggestion and ask the minister if he will give consideration to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very careful consideration has been given to that problem. We are aware of the problem. Unfortunately coarse grains payments do not to any considerable extent affect the drought areas. So far as the wheat payment is concerned, the winding up of the five-year pool involves problems which make it impossible for us to establish final payments at this time.


Mr. Fair:: I should like to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his answer to my question about interim payments, of which I gave him notice yesterday afternoon.


Mr. Argue:: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce also tell us what the initial price for oats and barley will be? The farmers of western Canada would like to know the various grain prices before they commence seeding operations. Will the amendments to, tiie

Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian Wheat Board Act be brought in at an early day, preferably before the Easter recess?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the first question, consideration is being given now to initial prices. Initial prices for 1950 crops will be announced well before seeding will commence. So far as the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act are concerned, they are ready for introduction into the house. Perhaps after we settle the pipe lines bill we shall be able to introduce the amendments.


George Alexander Drew: There is one point I think should be cleared up. The member for Souris (Mr. Ross) has referred to the statement, repeated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that what was being done was in accordance with the wishes expressed by the opposition. The member for Souris has pointed out that the reference was not to the whole opposition. In view of the fact that a prepared text has been issued, I think that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should make the correction for the record.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am quite willing to accept the word of the hon. member for Souris. It happens I was absent from the house when the criticism arose. I saw in my notes an indication that criticisms had been offered, and the nature of the criticisms. I do not wish to imply that the official opposition offered the criticism.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he noticed in yesterday's papers dispatches from Washington and New York reporting that Canada is to buy from the United States certain arms and equipment still on the secret list, including jet engines, radio and radar apparatus, armaments, and certain special equipment for F-86 fighters. In view of the importance of this subject, and the controversy surrounding the purchase of F-86 fighters, will the minister make a statement on this matter now, or at an early day?


Brooke Claxton: Arrangements have been made, as reported in the press some weeks ago, to complete the purchase of components for the F-86A aircraft, which are not being manufactured in Canada; that includes possibly engines and other equipment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he indicate the dollar value of these purchases from the United States?


Brooke Claxton: About $10 million.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The minister spoke about equipment which is being purchased in the United States by the armed services. Are the armed services being charged duty on this equipment?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; that is correct.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The situation is that the armed services are not spending the entire amounts indicated in estimates, for example; part of it, in the form of duties, is returned to the consolidated revenue fund?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. Abbott:: That is the general policy. It applies to everything.


Brooke Claxton: It applies to all government purchases for the government account.



QUESTION AS TO PURCHASES IN THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to purchases made in the United States. Is the press dispatch right in stating that $900,000 worth of steel is to be purchased in Germany in order to build ships in Canada for the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no personal knowledge of any such purchase.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the report in the press.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend object to that? Canadian firms buy steel wherever they can. It might have happened. German steel is just as good as any other steel.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If you are buying it from Germany, I wonder why you did not buy it from Britain as you used to.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Will the
Minister of Transport say what is the present position of the Newfoundland freight rate issue?


Lionel Chevrier: My recollection is, Mr. Speaker, that the

matter came up before the board of transport commissioners, and the board decided that it was clear that what both counsel for the applicants and counsel for the respondents requested was an interpretation of a legal problem under subsections 2 and 3 of section 32 of the terms of union. In other words, what the board was asked to do in the judgment was to give a legal opinion on the meaning of those sections.
Perhaps I could put it better this way: The point the board decided was whether or not any different rule was to be applied in the province of Newfoundland from that which was applied to the other provinces of Canada. The reply made by the board was no. The board did not decide the question whether or not Canadian National Railways was justified in making an additional charge because of the narrow gauge railway, nor was it decided whether or not the rate in question from Saint John, New Brunswick, to Halifax, as compared with the rate from Saint John, New Brunswick, to St. John's, Newfoundland, was justified. The board said that matter would be decided at a later date if any of the parties aggrieved felt like proceeding with the issue. As I understand the present position, if the applicants in the case desire to proceed further, the board will hear the case.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask if a further application has been made to the board?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of any.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I gave notice to the Minister of Public Works yesterday that this house, and particularly the members from Prince Edward Island, would like to have information with regard to the dominion public building for Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. My question is this. Is the Minister of Public Works prepared to make a definite statement with regard to the properties purchased and paid for, and as to when work will proceed?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of this question. I have before me a lengthy report concerning this building, but I think I should summarize it and not clutter up Hansard with the three pages of details I have here.
Two years ago we had an estimate on the construction of this building. We gave notice of expropriation on the twenty-three propinquiries of the Ministry erties forming the site of the proposed building. Out of the twenty-three, two have been settled, and two will be settled in the near future. On the remainder we are negotiating for settlement. Our difficulty is that our valuators' valuations-we had two outside firms make valuations-do not agree with the amounts asked by the owners. I can give one instance without mentioning the name, so that no harm will be done to the negotiations. In one case, according to the detail I have here, we have a valuation of $10,000 for a property, but the owners are asking $60,000. It is quite difficult to come to an agreement in such a case. I am afraid we shall have to proceed through the courts.
As to the plans of the building, the sketches have been completed. They are being submitted to the two departments that will occupy the greater part of the building, that is, post office and customs; but from the list I have here I note that nearly every department of government will occupy space in the building. The moment we get the site-and we have given notice to the owners that we shall need the site from April 1 this year- we will proceed to the completion of plans and specifications, and will ask for tenders.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the government to introduce at this session any amendments to the Official Secrets Act in order to provide additional safeguards as recommended by the royal commission four years ago?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The matter is under consideration.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.


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



FREIGHT RATES

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, we planned to raise the question of increased freight rates-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member begins his remarks, might I draw to the attention of the house the fact that almost every day, when we start on the order of business under orders of the day, there is a

Freight Rates
great deal of confusion in the house. It is exceedingly difficult under such conditions for the Speaker to hear what is taking place, and it is therefore more difficult for him to maintain order. If hon. members have business which requires them to leave the chamber, may I request that they do so as quietly as possible; or if they feel they must converse with other members, may I ask that they do that also as quietly as possible, and preferably outside the chamber.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some time ago we thought it advisable to raise the question of freight rates. Since that time appeals have been lodged by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and by two of the provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. At noon today, listening to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's midday news, I learned that seven of the ten provinces were joining together in making an appeal, I believe to the governor in council. Consequently that fact to some extent limits the discussion one can initiate or carry on this afternoon. I am going to try to keep within the bounds of the rules of procedure and to discuss this matter apart from the actual increases that have been granted by the board of transport commissioners lately. I remember-


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to raise a point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the thought of my hon. friend, and I am almost prompted to apologize to him for interfering with his remarks; but I think I should bring to the attention of the Speaker a matter which has been brought to my own attention only quite recently. I think the house will want to have this information before the discussion proceeds any further.


Major James William Coldwell: That is all right.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like the house to understand that I am not objecting to any discussion on the subject of freight rates, nor do I want to prevent the discussion in any way; on the contrary, I am prepared to deal with it. But my understanding is that the application to which my hon. friend heard a reference over the radio is not in fact an appeal from the judgment but is nothing more or less than an application to review, amend and vary, under section 51 of the Railway Act, the decision on the 20 per cent application. In order that there might be no difficulty about this matter I thought I should, in fairness to the house, obtain from the chairman of the board of transport commissioners a statement as to what the position is. I should like to put the statement on the record and let you, Mr. Speaker, decide; and I think the hon. member will see for himself 
what the present status is. After this letter is put on Hansard, if Mr. Speaker decides that we should go on with the discussion, I am quite satisfied; but before the discussion proceeds, I think we should have this statement before us. I asked the chairman yesterday to send me a statement, and I received it this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member to make it clear to me and to the house to what body the application is being made? I understood the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to an application to the governor in council. Is the application to that body or to some other body?
Mr Chevrier: The application to which my hon. friend refers is the application which was made to the board of transport commissioners, and the decision which was handed down granting an increase of 16 per cent, plus also an application recently made by the Railway Association of Canada to increase the rates by 3-4 per cent.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I heard a very short report at one o'clock. It stated that seven of the ten provinces excluding Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland had now joined to make a protest to the governor in council. My impression was that it was an appeal to the governor in council. Already two provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have appealed to the board of transport commissioners. As I understand it, this is something new.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to answer that. I am not aware that there has been an appeal, save that I have seen in the press that there is to be one. If there is one, unquestionably this becomes a matter of which Mr, Speaker should take cognizance, as to whether or not it is debatable at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The point I should like to have cleared up definitely is whether the present application is to the governor in council or to the board of transport commissioners. If it is before the governor general in council I would say offhand that probably there would be freedom of discussion in the house. If the application is before the board of transport commissioners, the matter would then be sub judice, since the board is a court of record and debate thereon would not be permitted in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: It is clear that at the present time there is an application pending before the board of transport commissioners for an

increase of 3-4 per cent, which takes the form of an application to vary, rescind and amend the judgment of 16 per cent. I should like to place this document on the record; it will give a clearer explanation from the chairman of the board himself as to where the matter stands.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not want to interrupt the minister, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to deal with the 3-4 per cent increase. What I am going to deal with, if he will let me proceed, is something concerning the railway situation generally, and not specifically the question which the minister has raised. Let me point out that on March 5, 1947, a somewhat similar matter, which had arisen previously, was dealt with. On that date you yourself, sir, as Deputy Speaker, read a memorandum to the house which had been prepared by the then Speaker. It was a fairly long memorandum, and it dealt with the right of the house to discuss a matter that was then before the board of transport commissioners. The last paragraph of the memorandum reads as follows, as recorded at page 1051 of Hansard:
In making this statement, I have not overlooked the fact that the only discussion excluded by the rule is the matter actually before the board of railway commissioners, namely, an application by the railways for an increase in freight rates. I ask, therefore, that the members keep in mind the rule to which I have referred in speaking in this debate and in any debates which may follow while the matter is sub judiee.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has read, perhaps the house would like to know just what application is before the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, Mr. Speaker, if I may I shall proceed to explain to the house what is the present position. I hold in my hand a letter from the acting chairman of the board of transport commissioners, Mr. Wardrope. It reads as follows:
March 20, 1950
Dear Mr. Chevrier:
In response to your verbal request as to the present situation with regard to the application of the Railway Association of Canada for a 20 per cent increase in freight rates, I beg to state as follows:
The board by its judgment of March 1 last and for the reasons given authorized a general increase, subject to exceptions, as set out in its order No. 74034, dated March 1, 1950, of 16 per cent.
Subsequently, by application dated 10th March, 1950, the Railway Association of Canada, on behalf of its member companies as mentioned in schedule A attached to its application, has applied to the board for an order under section 51 of the Railway Act changing, altering or varying the above order in the manner set forth in the application and upon the following, among other grounds:
1.	That in its said judgment dated February 28, 1950, the board erred in not authorizing such a percentage of increase in the said tolls and rates
Freight Rates
as was required to make good the total revenue deficiency of $29,971,700 determined by the board in its said judgment and based upon the adjusted results of railway operations of Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the year 1949 which the board used as a measure of the needs of all railway companies parties to the said application.
2.	The board was in error in authorizing an increase of only 16 per cent in said tolls and rates in that such increase would have provided an increase in revenues to Canadian Pacific Railway Company based upon the traffic volume in the year 1949 of only approximately $22,300,000 instead of providing a rate of increase that would have met the total revenue deficiency determined as aforesaid by the board amounting to $29,971,700.
3.	That the formula adopted by the board in its judgment dated September 20, 1949, upon review of its said judgment dated March 30, 1948, was, according to the judgment dated February 28, 1950, given full effect to in arriving at the said deficiency of $29,971,700, but the board nevertheless made the error of further adjusting said deficiency in the manner indicated by the following paragraph of the said judgment dated February 28, 1950:
"As the majority judgment of September 20, 1949, reviewed the decision in the 21 per cent case and determined that the latter should have been 15 per cent, and also incorporated such modification in the 8 per cent interim award, it is necessary to modify the above stated deficiency accordingly."
4. That the errors above set forth constituted errors in law in that the board by its said order No. 74034, having established a total revenue deficiency for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company of $29,971,700, failed to authorize such an increase in the said tolls and rates as would make good such deficiency and thereby failed to perform its duty under the Railway Act to fix and determine just and reasonable rates and to change and alter rates as changing conditions or cost of transportation required.
Applicants further request that the board extend the time within which applicants may apply to the board for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada under subsection 3 of section 52 of the Railway Act from the said judgment dated February 28, 1950, and the said order No. 74034, until one month after the disposition by the board of the application herein made for an order changing, altering or varying the said order No. 74034.
The acting chairman goes on to say:
On notice of motion served by the applicant upon the respondents and returnable today, there appeared before the board this morning counsel for the applicant and counsel for respondent provinces for the purpose of fixing a date for the hearing of the said application.
Owing to its present commitments and commitments of some of the interested parties, the board was unable, at this time, to fix a date and has taken the matter under consideration.
Yours very sincerely,
Hugh Wardrope


Alan Carl Stewart: Has the minister a copy of the submission on freight rates which was made to the royal commission on transportation?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Alan Carl Stewart: I wonder whether he would give it to the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-

Freight Rates


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Yorkton wanted to ask a question.


Alan Carl Stewart: May we have the submission to the royal commission on freight rates? I wish to raise an objection, on a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: I have that, but could we not stick first of all to the matter which is now before the board of transport commissioners? I take it my hon. friend has in mind the matter which is before the royal commission on transportation.


Alan Carl Stewart: May I speak to the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: No point of order has been raised. We have been endeavouring to clarify the position of the application before the board of transport commissioners, and that has been clarified. We have had a statement of the position. I now call upon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: Under the circumstances, and knowing what the circumstances were, I had no intention this afternoon of discussing questions raised in the memorandum of the acting chairman of the board of transport commissioners. I realize that it does alter what I would have said, had those appeals not been made.
I wish to discuss the railway problem as it very largely affects all the people of Canada, and I shall avoid dealing with matters in the memorandum the minister has read into the record.
Let me say first, Mr. Speaker, that I think all hon. members will agree that transportation in Canada is of fundamental importance to all the people of this country, wherever they may live. It does not matter whether they live in the central provinces, the mari-times, the prairie provinces or British Columbia. We are all vitally interested in this problem. It does not matter whether we consider it as a problem of transportation of Canadian goods from one part of Canada to another, or whether we think of it as a matter of vital interest in the defence of this country; the transportation system is a matter of great concern. Indeed, the fathers of confederation recognized this in 1867 when one of the considerations upon which confederation was achieved was the building of a railway line across the country to link British Columbia with the rest of Canada. When that was done the people of this country gave much encouragement to the transportation company which obtained the charter. I think it would be well if, in thinking of this whole transportation problem and the question of freight rates, hon.
IMr. Coldwell.]	,;jj |n*|
members would look over the debates following confederation, between the years 1874 and 1884. They would do well to read the debates of those ten years and refresh themselves on the matters which came to the attention of parliament in those days. If they do so they will agree that there is every reason in the world why the people of Canada should view with alarm the trend which has occurred in recent years in connection with our railways and their services.
Indeed at that time, in 1880 as in 1874, it was actually the opinion of the house that the best way to deal with railway construction in Canada was to construct railways under a publicly-owned plan. But, as those who are familiar with our Canadian history will remember, that idea was abandoned, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was granted a charter. We see what amounted to a gift, if we put it in cold cash, of some $62 million, in two forms. First of all the company was granted $25 million in cash. The other $37 million was made up by the transfer of 700 miles of railway already completed by the Mackenzie government and valued at something over $37 million. In addition to that, as hon. members know, there was a grant of 25 million acres of our western lands. Again I am sure that most hon. members know that while the making of large grants had been the practice in the United States, there was one variation in that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had this advantage: that if land adjacent to the railway in one township was not satisfactory, they could substitute for it land elsewhere. In the 700 miles of railway owned by the people of Canada, I should have added, was the very valuable Pembina branch of the St. Paul and Pacific railway, which at that time was regarded as one of the most important routes in this country and indeed it is still.
I wish to get this on the record: that in addition to these grants in cash and in acres of land, they also received exemption from taxation on their railway property and on their capital stock, and exemption from customs duties on supplies they required to import.


Alan Carl Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to a point of order, not for the purpose of limiting my hon. friend's speech, but because I too wish to speak on this subject. I should like to have a ruling on it.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment; instead of interrupting me, would not the hon. member be better to raise the point of order if he desires to speak subsequently?


Alan Carl Stewart: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I have already been interrupted several times.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has been interrupted several times. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for Yorkton that it is not usual for Mr. Speaker to give a ruling in anticipation or to express an opinion on a hypothetical point of order.


Alan Carl Stewart: Well, I am calling for it.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order would have to relate to the remarks already made.


Alan Carl Stewart: I understand that. In order that a limitation on the debate may either be made or not made, and as I intend to follow my hon. friend, and do not wish my speech limited any more than his-


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; just state the point of order.


Alan Carl Stewart: The point of order is that under citations 251 and 252 this subject is sub judice, in that this matter is before the board of transport commissioners, which is a court of record. Then there is this further point: that a royal commission has been appointed to go into the whole matter of freight rates and to consider the very matters to which my hon. friend has already referred, including the history of the C.P.R., gifts of land to the company, and other factors.
Citation 490 states that on March 30, 1933, when the committee of supply was considering the estimates of the Department of Justice, a member endeavoured to discuss the finding of a royal commission appointed to investigate charges against a county court judge. The citation points out that the chairman ruled that the report not having been brought down, the matter was still sub judice, and the discussion could not take place. On an appeal to the house the chairman's ruling was confirmed, without a dissenting voice.
In this instance there is a royal commission going into the whole matter of freight rates. Personally I would like a discussion in the house; but if the rule is there, I submit I am bound by it, and so is my hon. friend. The royal commission has not yet reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Yorkton is, as I understand it, that at the present time a debate should not be permitted on any matter affecting transportation because a royal commission has been set up to inquire into that matter. I take it that that is the point of order raised.


Alan Carl Stewart: Yes.
Freight Rates


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has quoted as his authority citation 490 in Beauchesne's third edition, which refers to a royal commission set up to deal with certain charges against a county court judge. I should like to quote from the citation:
A member endeavoured to discuss the findings of a royal commission . . . The chairman ruled that the report not having been brought down, the matter was still sub judice and the discussion could not take place.
I think the reason for that ruling was that it was a judicial matter, a charge against a judge, and that members were endeavouring to debate the findings in a report not yet brought down by the royal commission. I have never thought that because a matter has been referred to a royal commission it cannot be discussed generally in the house at the same time. I have no precedent to this effect, but there is a precedent to the effect that when a matter is referred to a committee of the house it can be discussed in the house, but the house cannot refer to the procedure and evidence in the committee before it has reported.
It seems to me that a similar principle might well govern the reference of a matter to a royal commission and that citation 490 of Beauchesne's third edition lends support to this view.
I would accordingly rule that it is not out of order to discuss transportation problems generally when such matters have been referred to a royal commission. On the other hand, I would also rule that reference should not be made to the proceedings, or evidence, or findings of a royal commission before it has made its report.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) for bringing the matter to my attention. It was a new question for me, and I hope my ruling meets with the general approval of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the interruptions will not be counted in my forty minutes, because if they are I believe I would only have about five minutes left. Therefore I am going to ask your indulgence in that respect.
With reference to your ruling, sir, may I also say that I think it is one that we would expect. Last year I remember that when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) wished to discuss the subject of radio broadcasting, which was then before a royal commission, he was permitted to do so. It was believed to be quite in conformity with the rules of the house, and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said so at that time.

Freight Rates
When I was interrupted I believe I had just remarked that, in addition to the other concessions which were granted, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had exemption from certain customs duties on the materials required for the construction of the railway. There was the deletion of course of the provision that was in the act of 1874 to the effect that under certain circumstances the government might step in and take over the railway. Out of this gift a great railway system was established. Later, by further guarantees and by grants of land from the provinces, particularly the province of British Columbia, the financing of the railway was made possible, and indeed largely undertaken one way or another by the people of Canada.
In "The Life of Gladstone", by John Morley, there is a most interesting paragraph. In 1844 Mr. Gladstone was president of the board of trade of Great Britain, and at that time the many lines of railway were just being built in that country. Morley's "Life of Gladstone" records that:
Mr. Gladstone proposed a select committee on the subject, guided its deliberations, drew its reports, and framed the bill that was founded upon them. He dwelt upon the favour now beginning to be shown to the new roads by the owners of land through which they were to pass, so different from the stubborn resistance that had for long been offered: upon the cheapened cost of construction: upon the growing disposition to employ redundant capital in making railways, instead of running the risks that had made foreign investment so disastrous. It was not long, indeed, before this very disposition led to a mania that was even more widely disastrous than any foreign investment had been since the days of the South Sea bubble. Meanwhile, Mr. Gladstone's Railway Act of 1844, besides a number of working regulations for the day, laid down two principles of the widest range, reserving to the state the full right of intervention in the concerns of the railway companies, and giving to the state the option to purchase a line at the end of a certain term at twenty-five years' purchase of the divisible profits.
If you will read that carefully you will find much of what Mr. Gladstone tried to prevent in Great Britain occurred some forty years later in our own country.
Yesterday, I believe it was-and I think this is material to any discussion of railway problems in the house-I read a report in the press of a statement made on behalf of the Canadian National Railways by the new president, Mr. Donald Gordon. When you look back over the story of the consolidation of various lines of railway into the Canadian National Railway system you can see many reasons why it is we find ourselves faced with the difficulties that confront us today, particularly when you consider the building of redundant lines and the taking over of other facilities that were not at all remunerative. I recommend to hon. members that they procure from the library-there is at least one

copy there-the decision of a former president of the United States, who at the time was Mr. Justice Taft, in connection with the board of arbitration of the affairs of the Grand Trunk Pacific in 1921, I believe it was. Operating in this country, the Grand Trunk Pacific was found by Mr. Justice Taft to have engaged in all kinds of methods in order to deceive both the people and the government of Canada.
I am not going to go into this matter at any length, although I have before me a part of Mr. Justice Taft's reasons for dissenting from the award made in the case of the Grand Trunk arbitration. It shows how profits were concealed; it shows that when the time came for the government to take it over, values were inflated, and it indicates the manner in which this was done secretly by the board of directors in London at that particular time. Unfortunately what may be said of the Grand Trunk Railway, and its concealment of various factors of material interest to the people of Canada at the time we took over the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, is true in large part of the early history of all railways, not only in Canada but indeed in the whole of North America.
Therefore I say that from time to time these railways have been built up out of great concessions made to them by the people of Canada. For example, the Canadian Pacific, in addition to the concessions I have enumerated, have from time to time actually been relieved of obligations that they undertook in regard to some of their railway operations.
Look at the Crowsnest pass agreement, for example, under which the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia made large grants to the railway. In return western Canada was to receive certain concessions with respect to the rates on various types of commodities. If I may give a few examples, the rates on green and fresh fruits were reduced by 33i per cent; on coal oil by 20 per cent; on cordage and binder twine by 10 per cent; on agricultural implements of all kinds, set up or in parts, 10 per cent; iron, including bar, band, Canada plates, galvanized, sheet, pipe, pipe fitting, nails, spikes and horse shoes by 10 per cent; roofing, felt, boxes and packing by 10 per cent; all paint and oils by 10 per cent; livestock by 10 per cent; woodenware by 10 per cent and household furniture by 10 per cent.
Those of us who know the history of Canadian railways recall that in 1919, under the stress of war and post-war conditions, that agreement was temporarily set aside and the reductions in those classifications, together with the rates on grain then established, no longer applied. In 1922 this parliament-I

Freight Rates
remember it very well; though I was not here I followed it very closely-restored the rates on grain but did not restore the rates on these other commodities. In 1925 they were actually abolished by an act of this parliament, thereby imposing a greater burden on western Canada in the interests of the railway than it had theretofore borne. For a number of years there has been continuous propaganda on the part of the railways to get rid entirely of all that remains of that rate which was adopted as part of a definite agreement in return for grants and concessions made in 1896 or 1897.
So bit by bit we have seen our railways become more and more burdensome on the people, at least in two parts of Canada. Those two parts are the prairie and British Columbia region and the maritime regions, though to some extent the maritimes have been relieved by certain subsidies and subventions. Not only did the government of Canada make substantial money grants to the Canadian Pacific Railway, as I have said; British Columbia did the same thing. At that time these concessions were regarded as of vital importance to the very small number of people then living in the prairie region, and the not much larger number of people living in British Columbia. These rates went into effect in 1898, though the agreement was made a year or two earlier. Since that time the population of the prairie region has increased by leaps and bounds, and one would think that because of the increased volume of business the reverse would have happened and instead of the burden becoming heavier it might have become lighter.
Then, of course, these burdens have not all been spread evenly over the country. Where you have a high basic rate and an increase is given on that rate it imposes a further burden, and makes the rate still more discriminatory than it was before. That is one reason I hope that when these matters afe thoroughly considered by this house special attention will be given the matter of discrimination in our rate structure. The across-the-board, horizontal increases that have been made over the years-I am not discussing necessarily the recent increases-have imposed a burden upon some parts of the country greater than that imposed upon others. We must remember that there have been times when the cost of moving commodities from one part of Canada to another has almost equalled the value of the commodities themselves. If we look at the record of the thirties we can see how that worked out. I do not need to quote any freight rate to bring this home to hon. gentlemen. I do not need to discuss the possibility of rates being increased through
the abolition of the concessions made under the Crowsnest pass agreement. If we look at 1925, when our own parliament passed a statute settling the controversy that then existed in the country and which so many of us remember so well, the average farm price of wheat in Saskatchewan was $1.23 a bushel. In 1927 it dropped to $1; in 1928 to 80 cents; in 1929 it went up to $1.05. In 1930 it actually fell to 49 cents and in 1931 to 38 cents; someone else was in power then. In 1932 it dropped to 35 cents; in 1933 it went up to 49 cents and in 1934 to 61 cents. By 1939 it was back to 54 cents and in 1941, the second year of the war, it had only risen to 61 cents. By 1942 it was still only 77 cents. In 1947, which incidentally is the last year for which I have been able to get the average farm price from the bureau of statistics, as a result of the wheat agreements and world conditions it was up to $1.54 a bushel.
So we can see how railway transportation and the rates charged for moving commodities from one part of this country to another have a great effect on our economy. If there should be any further imposition, and particularly if we should go into a period of decline in farm prices, it might be conceivable that the cost of moving farm commodities and particularly wheat, the great commodity in which many of us are interested, from where it is grown to the seaboard might equal or even exceed the value of that commodity on the farm. That indicates how disastrous the situation would be not only for the farmers on the land but for the whole economy of the country; because I say-and I am quite sure many hon. members will agree with me-that the prosperity of this country depends in no small measure upon our agricultural production and particularly . the wheat economy of Canada. I remember hearing a statement made some years ago- speaking from memory I believe it was made by a former prime minister of this country, a former leader of the Progressive Conservative party, Viscount Bennett, but at least someone said-that no comparable group of people in the history of the world had produced as much new wealth in as short a space of time as the men and women engaged in the production of grain in the prairie provinces. Whoever made it, I believe that is a correct statement of fact. The millions and indeed billions of bushels of wheat that have been produced over the years have brought to this country new wealth exceeding that produced by any other industry or group of people in Canada. Consequently, those of us who come from western Canada are tremendously interested in this railway problem; whether it be the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific; whether it be service


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope he did not pay it.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, he paid it. I believe that is something the Minister of Transport should have investigated. Perhaps in a debate of this sort it may be a minor point, but it is something which should be looked into. It should not be possible for merchants to be faced with demands for large sums of money sometimes months after deals have been completed, on the basis of the freight rates quoted by the railway.
I am not going to trespass further on the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, but I did want to raise this problem, because I believe that members in all parts of the house should have an opportunity of saying something about reorganizing our transportation system to remove the discrimination that now exists, and affording better opportunities for our people to move commodities from one side of this country to the other.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I rise, not for the purpose of intervening in this discussion of the important matter of transportation in Canada, but to explain my position as Minister of Finance, with respect to the final supplementary estimates, and the interim supply which I hope we shall be able to vote today. I discussed this matter with the leaders of the various parties a day or two ago, and explained that, in connection with the'final supplementaries in particular, there were one or two items which it was important should be voted within the next day or two. Those two items are the further appropriation required under the Veterans Land Act of about $700,000, and the item for unemployment assistance in Newfoundland where the existing votes have run out. If things are to be continued, we must get the appropriation voted within the next day or two.
I hope that, before we conclude tonight, it will be possible to pass the supplementary estimates, and the relevant supply bill founded on them, as well as the interim supply for April and May of the new fiscal year, which commences on April 1. I do not know how much time the house may wish to take in considering the supplementaries. As the house knows, the final supplementaries are to

pay bills. There is no change of policy involved. Probably if we could conclude the discussion of this matter by six o'clock, it would be possible to get this through in two hours this evening. I am simply making this appeal to members who feel they have to speak on this important matter, to restrict their remarks as much as possible. There will be other occasions on which it can be discussed, and I hope it will not be necessary to provoke a general debate on transportation problems today because, as I have said, it is essential to get this other business through if it is at all possible.


Alan Carl Stewart: In view of what the minister has said, I shall shorten the remarks I intended to make on the matter of the Crowsnest particularly, and freight rates generally. The matter is of great interest to the people of western Canada, and to the members from that area.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has referred to the Crowsnest pass rates. It is not my understanding that that question is before the board of transport commissioners. If my understanding is correct, I would have no objection to the discussion of that matter, but I think the question of freight rates generally would be out of order at this time, in view of the application which is now before the board of transport commissioners.


Alan Carl Stewart: It was for that reason I raised the point I did a short time ago. The hon. member who just preceded me did raise the question of the Crowsnest rates.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of privilege, I did not discuss the Crowsnest pass rates.


Alan Carl Stewart: You referred to them.


Major James William Coldwell: I referred to the Crowsnest pass agreement as one consideration in the building of a railway.


Alan Carl Stewart: What I have to say refers to the Crowsnest agreement which covers the rates.


Mr. Speaker:: If the question of the Crowsnest pass rates is now before the board of transport commissioners, it would be sub judice and could not be debated in the house at the present time. I think that is clear.


Lionel Chevrier: In order to clarify the matter, I would say that the matter of the Crowsnest rates is not before the board of transport commissioners but the subject matter has been referred to the royal commission on transportation. I also obtained from the secretary of the royal commission on transportation a statement concerning the matter. It is quite lengthy and I do not want to burden the house with it; I summarized it in what I said.
Freight Rates


Alan Carl Stewart: As a matter of fact, there is a decision of the supreme court on the matter of the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners in connection with the Crowsnest rates, and that decision is that they have no jurisdiction over them or over the agreement. So the matter is not properly before the board, if it was before them. In any event, it has nothing to do with this last submission which is before the board, namely, an increase of three and a half per cent in the general rate on the basis of a mistake which was made in the former judgment. That is the only submission that is before the board of transport commissioners now, as I understand it.
In the first place, I want to point out, as has been pointed out in the report, that what was before the board of transport commissioners was the original application for a twenty-one per cent increase. Finally sixteen per cent was granted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think I shall allow discussion on that question. The minister has stated the situation. In fact, he has read the application which is before the board, and that application does refer to the very matters which the hon. member for Yorkton is now mentioning. I would ask him not tc discuss that question nor to bring it to the attention of the house.


Mr. Slewarl (Yorklon):: I am not going to discuss it. I am just delimiting what is before the board. I am not going to discuss what is happening before the board.
In connection with the Crowsnest agreement, I want to say that thirty-two of the western Liberals who are now sitting in this House of Commons met as soon as some announcement was made that the Crowsnest agreement was the subject of attack by the C.P.R. Those western Liberals sitting in this parliament on November 16, 1949, signed a document which reads as follows:
Thirty-two western Liberal members of the Commons said Tuesday they would fight any recommendation to remove western Canada's low freight rates on grain and grain products, which has been proposed before the royal commission on transportation. The proposal has been made by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which contends that the statutory "Crowsnest pass" rates are not paying their way. Leslie Mutch, veterans affairs parliamentary assistant, Tuesday issued a statement signed by the 32 members declaring a recommendation for any change in the rates would be met head-on by them in a "no quarter" fight.
The statement said the western members have discussed the C.P.R. "threat" at length and "desire to protest any action which would seek to implement the C.P.R. brief in this regard."
They added the Crowsnest rates are "essential to the welfare of western Canada" and were "bought and paid for" by the west.

Freight Rates


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to limit the debate; but in view of the request that was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) I thought it should be understood whether or not this is to extend into a debate on freight rates, because the remarks which have just been made and which are being put into the record by the hon. member have no meaning whatever unless they relate to his views as to what should or should not be permitted with regard to rates.


Alan Carl Stewart: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood that the hon. member for Yorkton was referring to the Crowsnest pass agreement which sets forth certain rates. I also understood the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to say a moment ago that that question was not now before the board of transport commissioners.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, it is, very definitely.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is before the royal commission.


Mr. Speaker:: If I understood the Minister of Transport correctly, he stated that the present application before the board of transport commissioners does not affect the rates charged under the Crowsnest pass agreement. If that is so, that question is not sub judice.


James Arthur Ross: That matter was argued the other day in the courts.


Lionel Chevrier: That is so.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask one question with respect to the point of order? I am asking my question of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). In the statement that he is in the midst of reading he indicated that the Canadian Pacific Railway made certain critical comments-


Alan Carl Stewart: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. As I say, he has indicated that the Canadian Pacific Railway made a protest against the Crowsnest rates. May I ask where the Canadian Pacific Railway made that protest?


James Arthur Ross: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to make some remarks on this matter in this debate today. Now that the point of order is raised, may I say that this very matter of freight rates under the Crowsnest pass agreement was argued within the past few days right over in the law courts, before the royal commission on transportation, because I have some of the evidence before me. If one member in one corner of the house can argue this matter I think we should all be entitled to do so. I am greatly concerned about the matter, and I want to advance arguments along the same

lines as those that have been put forward. The matter has been argued before the royal commission on transportation in the last few days.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, may I say to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) that if one member is allowed to discuss the matter, every member will be allowed to discuss it if he wishes to do so.


James Arthur Ross: I grant you that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to refer back to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member for Yorkton referred to an application. If that application is now before the court or the board of transport commissioners, it would be sub judice and not debatable in this chamber.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say one word on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have sent my notes up to Hansard, but I had in my hand a copy of the evidence given before the board of transport commissioners in connection with the Crowsnest rates.


James Arthur Ross: Certainly.


Major James William Coldwell: That is why I did not deal with them.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of what has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I wonder if it would meet with the wishes of all hon. members of the house if the question of the Crowsnest rates were not debated at this time? If hon. members agree I will not make a ruling.


Alan Carl Stewart: In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance wants to go on, I would agree; but I want to put on record that I am greatly surprised that western members are impeding any discussion of the Crowsnest pass rates.


James Arthur Ross: I want that point made quite clear, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to have the discussion broadened in order that I could debate that very issue. I do not want to have words put into my mouth.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I have just spoken, and in doing so I carefully avoided discussing the Crowsnest pass rates as such and the applications, because I thought that by doing otherwise I would not be acting in conformity with the rules of the house. Had that not been the case, I would have expressed the opinion that I have expressed over and over again over the years, namely that these Crowsnest rates must remain inviolable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Alan Carl Stewart: On a question of privilege, may I say that I did not intend to go into the matter of the rates at all. What I was going into was the matter of retaining the agreement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You wanted to read a political speech.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of what has been said, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
85. Departmental administration, $1,392,488.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
459. Departmental administration, $1,012,455.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
528. Departmental administration, $2,175,279.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
423. Departmental administration, $482,875.
Item stands.
["I am sorry to hear that. I had hoped that one of these times we would click, and that the minister would agree to consider the matter and do something for these people, thus making it unnecessary for us to speak about it three or four times this session. But if it is necessary, we will do so.\nItem stands.\nAt six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess."]
Douglas Charles Abbott: We shall now deal with further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing service-
569. Subsidies lor cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $9,448.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the parliamentary assistant give the figures in connection with these cold storage warehouses and the subsidies paid to them by provinces, and in particular the payments being made to the cold storage warehouses in Saskatchewan under this act?


Mr. McCubbin:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I have not these figures with me. I can get them for the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the parliamentary assistant in a position to give us the particulars of this item? What does it cover? Perhaps he will place on Hansard an answer to the question I have asked in regard to the subsidies
Supply-A griculture
that have been paid out during the last year to the various cold storage establishments generally across the dominion and in particular in Saskatchewan.


Robert McCubbin: We are now dealing with the supplementary estimates, Mr. Chairman. This is an additional amount needed to cover the four or five cold storages. The amount paid out in Saskatchewan is $6,454. The amount for all Canada is $1,429,789.


Mr. Bryce:: Can the parliamentary assistant tell us how many co-operative organizations have been participating in these subsidies?


Robert McCubbin: Forty-six co-operatives.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can we have some information from the parliamentary assistant covering these different items?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That will be given before we get to the other departments.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We shall have that information?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; if not, I shall try to give it. I have been through all this in the treasury board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
570. Agricultural Products Act-to provide for losses incurred in respect of the purchase, sale and export of agricultural products under the Agricultural Products Act, including authority for the Minister of Finance, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, from time to time, to pay amounts in the aggregate not exceeding $40 million out of any unappropriated money in the consolidated revenue fund as recoverable advances-further amount required, $350,000.
['Yes; if not, I shall try to give it. I have been through all this in the treasury board.']
Mr. Wright:: Can the minister give us the products for which this $350,000 was used? Is it the total amount used out of the $40 million that is available for the support of these products, or the payment of subsidies on the products going to Great Britain? I take it this is the item which covers the export of cheese, bacon and dairy products to Great Britain.


Robert McCubbin: This item of $350,000 is for bacon alone. Nothing in respect of cheese is in this item. The total amount was $450,000. The estimate was $100,000. Therefore $350,000 extra had to be put in from January 1 to March 31.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Of this year?


Robert McCubbin: Of this year, and of the amount that we have to send to Great Britain in this year. Does that answer the question?


Percy Ellis Wright: That answers part of it. Out of the $40 million how much was used altogether in addition to $350,000?

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Charles Abbott: These figures would not be available yet, Mr. Chairman, but I expect my hon. triend can get them. Perhaps I can get them before the committee rises.


Robert McCubbin: I would be glad to get them for the hon. member if he wishes them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this the heading under which a payment will be made to the apple growers of British Columbia with respect to their shipment of apples to England this year? The apples came out of this year's crop. Since this amount covers the payments up to March 31, and if no provision is made here for what we hope is eventually to be approved to be paid to these apple producers, we might have to wait some considerable time before further appropriation is made. Will the parliamentary assistant say whether this item of $350,000 is sufficient to take care of the payment on the million boxes?


Robert McCubbin: No, it would not. This is for bacon only. What the hon. member has just mentioned is under consideration, and would have to be dealt with in the next fiscal year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One other question. As I understand it, this item refers to the Agricultural Products Act which is the act that was passed in March of last year. That act authorizes the minister to give power to provincial boards and to enable them to exercise powers otherwise held by the federal Minister of Agriculture. Is this payment of $350,000 incurred under the act as we passed it last year-in other words, incurred on behalf of the provincial boards-or is this to cover activities which were entered into before the act of last year came into effect?


Robert McCubbin: No, this is just for the contract price. It would have nothing whatsoever to do with the act. This amount of $40 million is the amount that was set aside to assist in the contracts.


William Scottie Bryce: Canada last year made an agreement to supply 195 million pounds of bacon. We supplied only 100 million pounds. Did we send any of the quantity this year, and was it paid for at $36 at the seaboard, or at $29 at the seaboard? I hope I am making myself clear. We fell down on our contract last year. Did we send any this year to fulfil our obligation of last year?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Some was sent this year to fulfil our obligation of last year. There was a certain amount of bacon, Wiltshire sides, in storage at the latter part of the year. They were not sent until the beginning of this year, and they were sent at last year's price.


William Scottie Bryce: Sent at the $36 price?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


William Scottie Bryce: And the farmer got paid the new price?


Robert McCubbin: No.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh, yes.


Robert McCubbin: Oh, no.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh, yes. The packer got $36 f.o.b. seaboard, and the farmer back in the country was getting $24 at Winnipeg. That is not fair, far from it.


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, the farmer who was selling hogs on the 1st of December and the latter part of November last year was receiving more than $24, and that was the bacon that was being sent to Britain the first of this year.


William Scottie Bryce: I am not going to take up the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to debate that with my hon. friend. I was in Winnipeg. The price was $24 a hundredweight, and increased to $26. But here the packer was still getting the old price of $36-right to this year.


Mr. Cardiff:: I understood the parliamentary assistant to say that $350,000 was paid out for bacon alone. What about the subsidy on butter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might give a word of explanation on that, because it comes under the Agricultural Products Act. My understanding is that this bacon is purchased by the meat board at a contract price. This $350,000, with a token item of $100,000 in the main estimates, will be sufficient to make up the difference between the price paid to the hog producer for his Wiltshire sides, and the British contract price. As I recall, there is a spread of $2.50 between the price the British will pay and the equivalent price here in Canada. This amount, together with whatever may be left of the $100,000, will be available to take care of the obligation up to March 31. There is an item in the main estimates for the year ahead to cover similar payments throughout the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian Affairs branch-
571. Welfare-Welfare of Indians, further amount required, $100,000.
['Perhaps I might give a word of explanation on that, because it comes under the Agricultural Products Act. My understanding is that this bacon is purchased by the meat board at a contract price. This $350,000, with a token item of $100,000 in the main estimates, will be sufficient to make up the difference between the price paid to the hog producer for his Wiltshire sides, and the British contract price. As I recall, there is a spread of $2.50 between the price the British will pay and the equivalent price here in Canada. This amount, together with whatever may be left of the $100,000, will be available to take care of the obligation up to March 31. There is an item in the main estimates for the year ahead to cover similar payments throughout the year.']
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two references I should like to make to this item which deals with the welfare of Indians. According to the speech from the throne some amendments are to be made to

the Indian Act at this session. No doubt a further committee will be set up with a view to discussing amendments to the act.
I should like at this time to bring to the attention of the new minister one or two matters which have been called to my notice by various Indian bands. Before doing so however-and it is not a perfunctory duty I perform-I wish to congratulate the new minister upon his appointment to this department, particularly so as he comes from the constituency in which I was born, and also because of the fact that I know he has in this department an opportunity for service whereby he can contribute much to the improvement of conditions among Indians on the reserves.
Various representations have been made to me by Indians, who represent a very considerable portion of our population. Particularly is this true in Saskatchewan. Within the confines of my own constituency there are several Indian reserves. I have been consulted by Indian organizations representative of Indians in two or three provinces who have told me that they have certain matters they wish to have brought to the minister's attention, to the end that in any amendment of the Indian Act their rights under the several treaties made between Queen Victoria and their ancestors, and made as well in other parts of Canada between the Indians and sovereigns earlier than Queen Victoria, shall be preserved.
Generally their request is that before any amendments are brought in an opportunity be given to representatives from each province, and in particular to the representatives chosen by the chiefs of the various tribes within each province so that, at the expense of the country, they may be brought here to Ottawa and given an opportunity to make representations as to the things they wish to have done for the Indians in their respective provinces.
That seems only fair. For two years a committee-and a very good one-sat to consider Indian affairs. The Indians feel, as indicated by their chiefs and councils, that they have not had an opportunity properly to advance their claims and rights. On their behalf I ask the minister with his departmental officials to convene a meeting of one or two representatives from each province, to be chosen by the Indians in those provinces, so that they may be. brought here to Ottawa and permitted to make their representations. They believe that they occupy a position of secondary citizenship, and that they should be entitled to equality of citizenship with all citizens. About that there
21, 1950	957
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration can be no dispute. There is no reason whatever why they should have an inferior citizenship.
In asking for equal citizenship they also ask that there shall be no interference with, or abrogation or reduction of, their treaty rights under the several treaties made between successive sovereigns and their ancestors. The fear I hear expressed among various Indian tribes is that if they are granted citizenship the advantages such citizenship would give by way of franchise, and in other direct ways, might be offset by their losing their treaty rights, their freedom from responsibility for taxation and freedom from responsibility in connection with the administration of the game laws, and the like, in various provinces.
The minister will know that there have been a number of cases before the court interpreting the right of Indians to hunt, a right guaranteed to them under their treaty rights. I was counsel in one case, which came before the court of appeal in Saskatchewan, wherein the Indians asked the right to hunt on all unoccupied land, in pursuance of treaty rights granted to them in 1873 when that portion of western Canada between Hudson bay and the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains was ceded to the crown. The court of appeal held that the treaty rights should be upheld, but that in so far as hunting and fishing were concerned those rights could be maintained only on unoccupied land.
The Indians want-and I believe they have a right to ask it-to have their rights inviolable, so that the treaty responsibilities entered into between several Britannic majesties and the ancestors of these Indians shall not in any way be abrogated or reduced by parliament. It is because they want the assurance that those treaty rights will be upheld and maintained in any amendments to the Indian Act that they ask to be given the opportunity to send representatives to Ottawa now, before the legislation is placed before parliament, to the end that their representations may be made, as they see it, to the foot of the throne, namely to the personal knowledge of the minister and his department.
I make this appeal to the minister today. I find among the Indian tribes a feeling of fear that their rights are going to be interfered with, and that those great rights which they cherish with such pride, and which were granted to them particularly by Queen Victoria, shall not be diminished by the action of a parliament in which-and I say this advisedly-because of the fact they have no vote, they have no representation. They ask that no amendments be made without first securing their consideration and approval of them. It is all very well to say that Indian

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration agents and representatives of the Indian department will be able to present to the minister and parliament the wishes and aspirations of these people, but that is not what they want. They want the opportunity to send representatives here. Ten representatives would cover all' the provinces of the dominion. They want to be allowed to come here for a few days to discuss the matter with the minister to the end that any amendments introduced will meet with their acceptance instead of being the result of the interpretation of their views to the minister by departmental officials, however efficient they may be.
Second, they believe-and I think rightly so-that the time has come when they should be allowed to take proceedings against His Majesty the King in the right of the Indian affairs department without the necessity of the issuing of a fiat which is granted by another department of the government, namely, that of the attorney general. Today the situation is that among various Indian tribes-and I am speaking particularly now of western Canada-claims are repeatedly made that there has not been that care in the administration of wards of the Canadian people that there should be on the part of certain officials of the Indian department, and that moneys in the trust funds, which should be used for the purposes of the Indians, are not used in accordance with treaty arrangements. Nevertheless, if a band of Indians find themselves in that position, where do they get when they complain? Their complaint is investigated, but they cannot take proceedings unless they have the fiat of the attorney general, and that has been refused on more than one occasion.
In my own province of Saskatchewan during the years of 1930 to 1933 one or two Indian tribes took proceedings against the crown for misfeasance and malfeasance, and one of them succeeded. From then on other tribes have been denied the right of action. They ask that they be granted the right to take proceedings for the protection of their treaty rights, and for the administration of the funds of the several reserves when and if there is anything in the nature of negligence, wrongdoing or misfeasance on the part of any of the officials of the Indian department. I do not think these are unreasonable requests. Indians are not subject to conscription or to military service in any way, but when we were at war members of the reserves in every part of Canada enlisted in numbers unexcelled by any other group in the dominion.
They ask for simple justice, and it is that appeal I make to the minister today. I say
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I
to him: Do not endeavour to have amendments to the Indian Act brought in that represent nothing more than the findings of the committee to date. In order to secure the co-operation of the Indians, above all not only must good faith be maintained with them but they themselves must believe that good faith is in fact being maintained.
It is in that spirit that I appeal to the minister not only for the welfare of the Indians but also for a recognition of what their contribution has meant to this country. I urge that when amendments are introduced they should not be piecemeal, that in fact they should represent the wishes, ideals and desires of the Indian tribes everywhere in Canada.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before too much time
elapses after the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre, I wish to associate myself with what he has so ably said today. We have neglected our Indian population in a way which, in my judgment, constitutes a scandal against the Canadian people, and it appears that we have no intention of remedying the abuses of our ways of dealing with them at an early date. I think the time has come for parliament and the people of Canada to repent of our evil ways and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
In addition to what the hon. member has just said, there are one or two more things I should like to mention. I see no reason why Indians should not be granted the old age pension. I believe that this neglect on the part of the dominion government is utterly indefensible. The Indians should have been the first to receive old age pensions. I believe that we should have a claims commission established to consider the various complaints which the Indians have against the administration to which they have been subjected through the years. There are violations of sacred treaties made between the sovereign and Indian tribes of Canada over 150 years ago which are simply flagrantly and callously disregarded. To call them scraps of paper, as the Kaiser called one of his treaties, does not begin to express the attitude which is maintained by Canadian government officials as to these treaties.
Something has to be done. The Indians with whom I have come in contact throughout Alberta are rapidly becoming more and more despondent, more and more disillusioned, more and more bitter. I maintain this condition must not be permitted to continue.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to endorse what the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Lethbridge have said. I was one of the members of the Indian affairs committee, and it has been a great disappointment to me

that nothing has been done before now after the tremendous amount of work performed by that committee. I know the committee sat each session for three years, and we had about seventy meetings at each session. It takes considerable time to go into the matter, and I do not want to do that now. I do not think a week goes by that I do not receive complaints from the Indians. It is a great problem. We set out to write a new Magna Carta for them.
The Indian problem was something that it was believed would solve itself at one time when the Indians were dying at the rate of one thousand a year. Today, with new health facilities, better hospitals and care, their numbers are on the increase at the rate of 1,500 a year. There are 135,000 Indians in the Dominion of Canada. Something must be done because a growing population like that cannot remain wards of the government. They have to take their rightful place in the economy of the country. I will speak further on this matter when the main estimates of the department come before us at a later date.


Mr. Harkness:: I also should like to endorse what has been said by the three previous speakers as to our Indians, and I should like to ask the minister two questions.
First, the speech from the throne indicated that the long overdue bill designed to overhaul the entire Indian Act and bring it into line with present ideas, humanitarian and otherwise, was to be introduced this session. It is not on the order paper yet, and I should like to ask the minister when we may expect that bill to be brought forward. I am sure this will represent an extensive revision of the act, and if it is to receive proper consideration a good deal of time will have to be devoted to it and I should think it might have to be referred to a committee. So the sooner the bill is introduced the better, and I think we should have some indication as to when that may be.
Then I notice that this vote is for Indian welfare, particularly supplies and material. I am glad this additional money is being provided, and that more supplies and materials are being given the Indians for welfare purposes. My second question is in connection with the welfare payments now being made to old or indigent Indians, which I believe now amounts to $8.50 per month. That is pitifully and totally inadequate, and I should like to know if any increase in that payment is anticipated or under consideration at the present time. The Indians of Alberta have asked that this amount be increased to at least $15 a month, a very modest request, and it seems to me that at this session we should
21. 1950	959
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration make provision in the estimates for an increase to at least that amount. Even that payment would appear very small.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to add my voice to those who have spoken already in favour of a better deal for our Indian population. In doing so I should like to congratulate the new minister on being appointed to this very responsible office. If he does not make a good job of it I shall be disappointed indeed, because I have high hopes for him.
I think the time has come when we will have to take rather forward steps in dealing with our Indian population. In my own province of British Columbia, where we have a tendency to be a little in advance of other parts of Canada-and we always tell the rest of Canada about it-we have enfranchised the Indian population. They are now on, the same basis, with respect to the franchise, as the other residents of that province. I do not think it can be very long maintained that the Indian is a citizen when he is considered as a British Columbian but a ward of the state when he comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. While I do not believe this is the proper time to debate this issue, because the matter will come before us on the main estimates for the coming fiscal year and I also understand a bill is to be introduced, still I should like the minister to give careful thought to the matter I have just mentioned, as to whether our Indian population can be both citizens and wards of the state.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Last session I asked a question with respect to the Indians and Eskimos in Newfoundland and Labrador, as to their status and what was being done for them; I believe that was around December 1. The Prime Minister replied that the matter was then being discussed and that it was hoped to reach an agreement with the province at some later date. Perhaps the minister can tell me the present position, and whether any decision has been arrived at.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: To deal with the last question first, I am afraid I cannot add anything to what the Prime Minister said last fall, but I shall make inquiries and see what I can get by way of an answer.
With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre, from his own words the committee will see how difficult this problem is with respect to the relative position of the Indian as a ward claiming treaty rights, and as a citizen; and we are studying that matter, of course, in preparing the bill. That legislation will not come before the house for some time yet. I would not want to be at all definite, but I should say it would be at

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration least a month before the bill will be available. At that time I hope we may be able to adopt such procedure as will meet with the approval of the whole house, and more particularly those hon. members who served on the committee three or four years ago and who were responsible in large part for the bill that will be brought forward.
As to the other question concerning the relief given the Indians, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has suggested this perhaps is not the time to debate that matter, and I would appreciate it if that part of the discussion could be left over until the main estimates are discussed. In the meantime I can assure hon. members that this question which was also brought up last session is still receiving consideration, and we may have something to say about it later on.


John George Diefenbaker: I notice the minister has not dealt with the one request I made, that coming from the Saskatchewan association of Indians, which I believe is under the chairmanship or presidency of Chief Tootoosis, an able and intelligent chieftain. He and other chiefs with whom I have consulted, not directly but by means of correspondence, have requested that representative chiefs from each province be given the opportunity to discuss the matter with the minister, and I should like to ascertain the minister's reaction to that suggestion. These Indian chiefs are very proud of their prerogatives and of their position, and are very jealous of the welfare of the people whom they represent. They feel they should be given the opportunity- not the privilege but the opportunity-of being personally represented here in Ottawa for a period of a few days in order to place their desires before the minister. They feel that too often when this is done through the regular channels the information which they wish to impart to the minister does not find its way to him; so I ask the minister if he will give serious consideration to that suggestion. Surely, in a day when we have representatives of various departments travelling over the world, whose expenses are not regarded as anything but proper expenses necessary for Canada to take her place in the world order, there can be no objection to the small expense connected with bringing these chieftains, many of whom have noble names and noble ancestors, to Ottawa to place their views before the minister, so that he in turn may be able to recommend the necessary amendments to the act. I ask him to consider this submission.


Walter Edward Harris: The Indians have made representations along the lines suggested. It has also been suggested by many

Indian bands and chiefs that we should introduce the bill and then delay action on it for some time. These Indians could then come to Ottawa and make their representations. Which of these two courses we might adopt, we are not prepared to say. I think you can take it that the minister would like to have the opinions of the chiefs, and will do his best to get them, so we will have nothing in the act that will not meet with general approval.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Canadian government's assessment for membership in the following international or commonwealth organizations-
572. World health organization-further amount required, $48,695.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There are a couple of matters in connection with this item that I should like to raise. I believe the minister should make a short explanation about the amount required for the world health organization. I am particularly interested to know if it arises in consequence of the withdrawal from membership in the world health organization by Russia, the Ukraine and Byelorussia a year ago, thereby increasing the quotas of the remaining members of that organization.
The second matter, Mr. Chairman, is not directly related to world health organization, but I think it will expedite consideration of the item in committee if I mention it now. It has to do with the abduction of thousands of Greek children by the communist guerrillas. When the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and I were in Greece about 15 or 16 months ago, the number of Greek children abducted by those communists, and carried across the northern borders into the communist countries to the north, was estimated in varying numbers. One figure I heard mentioned at that time was 13,000. Today I received a paper from Greece-perhaps other members of the house have received it as well-indicating the official estimate now, according to the best figures available to the government of Greece, is 23,000. They are distributed among those communist countries behind the iron curtain as follows: Yugoslavia, 11,000; Roumania, 3,800; Hungary, 3,000; Bulgaria, 2,600; Czechoslovakia, 2,200; Albania, 2,000. Those figures purport to come from the minister of social welfare for Greece.
This matter was before the United Nations at the end of November, 1948. The assembly of the United Nations condemned this abduction of children and their detention by the communist countries north of Greece. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) if any active steps are in contemplation by the Canadian government

with a view to forcing this issue, so far as it is possible to force it upon those countries behind the iron curtain. Up to the moment apparently those countries have simply ignored everything that has been done through the recognized organs of the United Nations, in demanding the return of these children to their parents.
Of all the despicable tactics adopted by these communist guerrillas in Greece in pursuing their evil designs, even exceeding what they did in destroying villages and burning homes, the worst of all has been the abduction of children. They have been torn from their homes and carried across the border into these northern countries so that they could be reared as communists, taught in communist schools in an atmosphere of hatred, so that when they are old enough they might come back bearing arms against their fatherland. Nothing is more despicable, it seems to me, than this exhibition of savagery and brutality on the part of the communist guerrillas, who were deriving help from the communist countries to the north, and were, of course, under the inspiration and direct assistance of the Kremlin.
I know the problem is not a new one to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I bring it up now so that no one will lose sight of the matter. It is one, Mr. Chairman, that offends the elementary sense of decency of every civilized nation. I do hope, even in the face of the disregard for the expressions and demands of the organs of the United Nations by these communist countries, that something may yet be done to restore these children to their parents.


Mr, Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to go on record as supporting the statement made by the member for Eglinton. As he has stated, about 18 months ago we were in Greece and we saw conditions exactly as he has outlined. While there, I talked with parents who had lost one, two, three or four children. At that time, I remember I thought of the abduction of the Lindbergh child in the United States several years ago, and the great amount of anxiety which that caused all over the North American continent. But that was one child. I believe that the figure covering the Greek children has grown to nearly 30,000.
I have a copy of the statement mentioned by the member for Eglinton. I realize in some small way just what these people have had to contend with during the last 7 or 8 years. At the same time, I realize the enormous problem confronting the minister of external affairs. I do believe every bit of pressure it is possible to bring to bear should, in this particular case, be exerted.
Supply-External Affairs I believe these people should have the privilege of living in a different manner from the one in which they are forced to live today. I do want to support everything said by the hon. member, and urge upon the minister that if there is any way this terrible condition can be rectified, it would be appreciated by those people who have suffered so cruelly over the years.


Mr. Pearson:: I agree with the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken, that among all the evil and vicious actions of the communist guerrillas in Greece and southeast Europe the abduction of the children from Greece into the communist countries has been possibly the most evil and the most vicious. As the hon. member for Eglinton has just pointed out, the situation has been discussed by the United Nations assembly on two occasions. At the last assembly we succeeded in getting through a resolution which even the communist states could not oppose. That resolution, if I remember it correctly, would have made it easier for the international Red Cross to go into those countries where these children are kept and investigate, report and help repatriate them. We hope that, as a result of that resolution, some progress has been made. What it is, I am not in a position to state at this time, although I understand the situation in Yugoslavia has been greatly improved.
I believe that the director of the international Red Cross will be in Ottawa before long. I shall then have an opportunity of talking about this matter with him, and I shall be glad to follow it up to see if there is anything more we can do. If there is, we should be happy to do it.
On the other point, the increased estimate for the world health organization has nothing to do, as I understand it, with the withdrawal of the U.S.S.R. and satellite states from that organization. It arises out of the decision at the last assembly of the world health organization in June, 1949, to increase the working capital fund of the organization. The working capital fund was devised so that the organization would have funds at its disposal during the period of the year when member states had not paid their annual assessments; and to cover that period and for the future, the assembly of the organization agreed that the capital fund should be increased from $2,553,960 to $4 million. The Canadian proportion of that, on the basis of our three per cent contribution to the organization, would be about $48,000 Canadian; and that is the purpose of this sum in the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
962
[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
Demobilization and reconversion-
574. To provide for the Canadian government's contribution to the international refugee organization-further amount required, $402,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: This is a further grant to the international refugee organization. I suppose the purpose of that grant is to assist in bringing people from the d.p. camps in Europe to Canada. I have run into a rather peculiar situation that seems to exist with regard to some d.p.'s coining to Canada. In some cases their passage is paid out of IRO funds, I understand, whereas in a number of other cases the relatives of the d.p.'s pay their passage. Several cases have come to my attention. The result has been that certain people coming from the d.p. camps and settling in western Canada, and whose passage has been paid by their relatives, have found themselves in debt to the extent of from two or three hundred dollars to $1,000 in the case of some families, when they reached Canada. That is a rather embarrassing and unfortunate position for them to find themselves in when there is apparently a fund for the payment of these passages. I should like the minister to tell me if he can-or if'he cannot do so now, to find out-how many refugees from d.p. camps in Europe have had their passage paid by IRO funds and how many have had to pay their own passage or have it paid by relatives in Canada. I should also like to know if refunds can be made from IRO funds to these d.p.'s who have already paid their passage to Canada, or have had it paid by relatives.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All d.p.'s who have come to Canada under the auspices of the IRO have been treated alike, and their expenses to Canada have been paid by the organization. That is one of the reasons we contribute to the organization. But there have been other d.p.'s who have come to Canada but who have not come under the auspices of that organization, but as a result of other arrangements, sometimes private arrangements and sometimes by other organizations. It would be quite impossible I think for us to ask the international refugee organization to pay the expenses of d.p.'s who do not come under the arrangements made by that organization; and I therefore doubt very much whether we could get any refund for the type of d.p. referred to by my hon. friend.
The amount of money in this estimate for the IRO is to provide for the increased contribution which is due from Canada because of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar last September. Our contribution to the IRO was paid in United States funds. As a result, this takes care of the increased amount required by IRO. It does not represent any additional

contribution. An additional contribution may be made next year but that has been tabled I think in the main estimates.
It may be of interest to the committee to know that because of the work of the IRO 690,000 refugees have now been moved out of Europe or from refugee camps to other countries. It is anticipated that there will be only a small number left by the end of June of this year. Of that number of 690,000, Canada has received some 77,000; Australia, 105,000; France, 36,000; Israel, 116,000; the United Kingdom, 83,000; and the United States of America, 150,000.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister the figure as to those who have come from d.p. camps under other auspices than those of the IRO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I have not; but I will try to get that figure for my hon. friend.


Mr. Pouliot:: With due respect to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I submit that this item should be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There should be unity of jurisdiction concerning similar matters. I noticed that during the debate on national defence some hon. members were discussing external affairs and that in the debate on external affairs they were discussing national defence. We have a new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and I had a word of praise to say about him not long ago. He should be treated as one who has the direction of all matters pertaining to immigration, whether it is the immigration of people who are d.p.'s or not.
With regard to the foreigners who were in concentration camps in the United Kingdom after the fall of France, I remember that there was a considerable exodus of those people to Canada. The British government asked the Canadian government to take care of all those prisoners. One of them was Fuchs. At the time I asked a question of the then minister of national defence, the late Colonel Ralston, who was in charge of the Canadian prisoners camps, and he told me that he knew nothing about it. He even looked surprised when I mentioned the matter. Some of those prisoners were good people and others were not. They were anti-nazis but many of them were communists. At one camp in particular, the one at Sherbrooke, when beer was rationed two big truckloads of beer were brought to the camp for the thirsty prisoners; that was at a time when the soldiers had a small bottle for two every fortnight. That was not fair.
I have only one or two questions to ask the minister, and he may not be in a position to answer them now. I should like to know the number of foreign diplomats; and when I use

the word "diplomats" I use it in the most general meaning, including not only ambassadors but consuls, consuls general, charges d'affaires, clerks, translators, et cetera, of foreign governments, who have come to Canada, have represented their country for a time, then have resigned their posts or have been forced to quit, and who have been accepted into Canada afterwards and have even been given positions in the service of the government of Canada. There are many of them who are here against the will of their own countries. I would like to know the number of them, their names if possible, and their present occupation. It is not that I am very much concerned about them, but it is interesting to know who are those who have come from outside. Perhaps they have very good reason for resigning their present positions, but it is quite important to have some information about them.
Speaking of everybody with Christian charity, we have a feeling for the people who have suffered in concentration camps in Germany, in Russia or anywhere else. Some of them deserve our sympathy; others do not. I presume that within a few days-and I ask my questions of both the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs-I shall be. given the information asked for.


Mr. Thatcher:: I have one question to ask. I am not clear whether or not German nationals come under the IRO. I should like to know whether they do or do not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand that at the present time German nationals do not come under the IRO arrangement.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to know why they do not. I should also like to know why the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is so slow in clearing up this matter of whether or not relatives in Canada can bring Germans over. Germans make pretty good citizens. Many of my constituents cannot understand the government's slowness in allowing German immigrants to come to this country. I have read newspaper reports which say that something is to be done about it, but the minister does not seem to get around to it. Britain did something about it one year after the war was over, and has taken many German immigrants. I wish the minister would clear this matter up. I thought that when we had a young, vigorous, healthy minister, something would be done on this question. I should like to see some action.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for 55946-61 i
Supply-External Affairs Moose Jaw. I find it absurd to condemn anyone because he belongs to a certain race. It is pure nonsense, and that applies to Jews and Gentiles alike. What should be done would be to examine the record of each man, to know his past, and to know whether he will be a desirable citizen of Canada.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They should be screened, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If I remember rightly, it was mentioned the other day that certain German nationals were allowed to come into Canada. Were they allowed to come in under special order in council?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Each one was allowed in under a special order in council. Who made the representation in each case, the director of immigration?


Walter Edward Harris: The classes which would be treated under a special order in council were set out by the minister in a statement to the house in September. Anyone who had a near relative in the group-might apply, and on his representation an order in council was granted.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Will the minister say why we are keeping German nationals ouit of this country? I suppose there is some reason for it, but I should like to know why.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I can answer the first question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, namely, why German nationals do not come under the IRO. The IRO was set up to assist those refugees who had suffered as a result of the war, and German nationals were not included in the benefits of the IRO which operates under the United Nations.
As to the second question, why German nationals are not admitted, I think I can only give the same answer I gave the other day, namely, that it is a very large question and a matter of government policy, and we shall announce any change in due course.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask a further question along the same line. In regard to those special cases to which the minister referred, must they be blood relations? Suppose a family had adopted a child. Would he be brought in under those regulations?


Walter Edward Harris: I hope this does not develop into a debate on immigration. This is an external affairs item of the IRO. Any German national within the group set out in the house by the former minister in September-I think it was the 22nd-has

Supply-External Affairs been allowed in, assuming that he is healthy, and can meet the character requirements, provided a close relative in Canada applies for him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have one question that has merely to do with the mechanics of the situation. I have in mind a displaced person who came to Canada, and who bought his release from some governmental agency. Of course he had to agree to spend one year in the occupation to which he was committed. He was an excellent fellow and a good worker. To use his expression, he bought himself out. I think that was done at the office of the department of labour in the city from which I come. Would the moneys that brought him out be IRO moneys or not? The mounted police used to speak of buying themselves out. Would that be money to the dominion, or is there some method of repayment to the IRO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The arrangement regarding the terms of settlement of displaced persons in Canada comes under the Department of Labour. Under this item I do not know of any way by which the IRO would be concerned with this question; nor do I know of any way by which the displaced person can buy himself out of a contract. Perhaps the Department of Labour might know more about it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It comes under the Department of Labour. Then we will not bother with it.


Mr. Mitchell:: I will answer it now and get rid of it. We have had the odd case where a person has not complied with the understanding-it is not a contract. What they have done is this. They have paid the price of their transportation in Canada; whether that is transferred to the IRO or not I do not know; but I will find out for my hon. friend.


Mr. Adamson:: I have a similar case. A displaced person brought his brother out from a camp in Germany, and the IRO wrote asking two things: one, for the Atlantic passage, a matter of some $300 or $400 for three people; and two, the railway fare from the port of disembarkation, namely, Halifax, to Toronto. I was very pleased to send the railway fare. Is this vote for such an item as the transAtlantic passage? The IRO wrote and said they were very hard up and would like some payment on the trans-Atlantic passage. Unfortunately the displaced person, having been in Canada for less than a year, was unable to forward any money for the trans-Atlantic passage. Does this vote cover that expense?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my understanding that this vote would cover the, expenses of IRO refugees to Canada to the port of landing, and
IMr. Harris (Grey-Bruce).]
that from the port of landing other arrangements have to be made. If my hon. friend has any particular case in mind on which he would like clarification we would be glad tc take it up with the director of the IRO office in Ottawa, who might be able to clear the matter up.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is what happened. We paid his fare from Halifax to Toronto, but not the trans-Atlantic fare.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Superannuation and retirement benefits-[DOT]
575. Government's contribution to the superannuation fund, further amount required, $63,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have a word with the minister about this item, relating as it does to superannuation and retirement benefits of federal civil servants.
I do not believe this is the day for an extended debate on this question if, indeed, an extended debate is necessary; at the same time I think I should warn the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), if we have not yet persuaded him of the necessity for reviewing, and reviewing favourably, the whole question of superannuated civil servants, particularly those in the lower brackets, that we shall keep on trying until we succeed.
It seems this is one of those items which, in common with the minister's estimates in general, come up at an awkward time. During the last session, from September to December of last year, they came up right at the very end.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I introduced my department today. As the hon. member will recall, I had promised to bring it on earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to say that the minister did listen to the protests last December against our having to discuss these important items late in the session, and did promise that the discussion would come up earlier this session. I am glad to know that his department is now open, and that we will get at it before long. But I stress the fact that it is not enough just to have an opportunity to discuss this matter. Rather, I feel strongly that it is time for our representations to receive better consideration than has been given them by the minister thus far.
He will realize that a few days ago, in answer to a question of mine, one which I have asked every session for a number of years, information was placed on Hansard showing what our retired federal civil servants and their widows are receiving by way of pensions. The figures are to be found at page 834 of Hansard for March 16, and they

show that out of 9,185 retired civil servants, 4,684, or 51 per cent of the total, are receiving pensions of less than $80 a month. I call attention to that figure because $80 a month is the amount of the old age pension as provided in the federal act.
Yet here we have 4,684 retired civil servants, many of whom have made contributions to their pension funds, retiring on pensions of less than that $80. One realizes of course a few of these retired civil servants will be widowers, or single persons without spouses. In most instances, however, it will be found that two people have to get along on that amount.
I realize that these figures in their totality are on Hansard, but I think I should point out that these 4,684 include 253 retired federal civil servants receiving pension of less than $20 a month-


Douglas Charles Abbott: They may have served only a short time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That may be so, but it is still a small amount to live on.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Presumably they have other resources, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the ones I hear from. There are 498 who are receiving pensions of $20 to $29.99; there are 677 who are receiving $30 to $39.99; 799 who are drawing pensions of $40 to $49.99; 781 who are in the bracket $50 to $59.99; 797 from $60 to $69.99; 779 drawing pensions from $70 to $79.99; and so on. The other figures are here showing the break-down as far as $100 a month, and over.
It seems to me that it is these people in the lower brackets for whom we should be most concerned. As the minister and most hon. members know, this is a subject we have raised repeatedly over a number of years. I cannot recite the exact year in which it happened, but a point was reached in our efforts in this matter where the minister agreed to take the whole matter under consideration. He did so; but the result of that consideration was a formal statement made in January, two or three years ago, to the effect that the government felt it could not do anything to supplement these pensions, even the lower ones, with a cost of living bonus, or some other additional provision.
All questions to the minister, to the Prime Minister or other members of the cabinet since that time, have produced a reference back to that statement made a few years ago. We have been told the government felt that no further consideration of the matter was indicated. Despite that stand taken by the government, hon. members have expressed their views at times in the house quite
Supply-Finance
strongly. I remember one debate a couple of years ago when ten or twelve members from various parts of the country took part, all speaking in such a way that it was made clear that this is a matter about which members feel keenly.
I have some further observations to make; but even after making them I do wish the minister to make some comment, so perhaps we had better call it six o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You will have two or three more chances later this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry to hear that. I had hoped that one of these times we would click, and that the minister would agree to consider the matter and do something for these people, thus making it unnecessary for us to speak about it three or four times this session. But if it is necessary, we will do so.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. May-bank for the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company, and the motion of Mr. MacDougall: "That this question be now put."
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, last night I attempted to emphasize that in the bills before us we have legislation concerned with the marketing of one of our greatest natural resources yet to be discovered. I called attention to the fact that our natural resources of gas and oil in Alberta are a national heritage, and that in so far as this government and the government of Alberta participate in the disposal of them they are trustees of the nation to safeguard their use for the benefit of this and future generations of Canadians. It has also been pointed out that these resources provide us with a great potential of cheap power which, if properly safeguarded and used in the interests of Canada, can contribute to the building of the nation.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) pointed out, natural gas, oil, coal and the chemical industries that are dependent upon these things can make western Canada the greatest and most prosperous part of this

Alberta Natural Gas Company continent. If we combine with these great natural resources and the industries that can be built around them our agricultural resources in western Canada one does not need much imagination to realize what a great future lies ahead of that part of the country.
I want to call attention once more to just what we are proposing to do with these resources in the bills now before us. We are proposing to hand over to a company, or any number of companies that can secure charters, the right to build pipe lines for the conveyance of these resources to anywhere they choose to take them. We are giving authority to these companies to dispose of Canadian assets in whatever market will bring the greatest profit at the present time without regard to the future of Canada or future generations of Canadians who may be dependent upon their proper use. I pointed out last night that in my opinion the policy we are following is wrong. Instead of considering which route is the most economical to build, instead of considering which market will provide the greatest returns at the present tme, we should be thinking of the disposal of these resources with an eye to the future of Canada, with an eye to using them to build a greater nation. I submit that in availing ourselves of the first opportunity to market them for the greatest profit we can secure at the present time we are jeopardizing the future of Canada and the fortunes of future Canadians. In my opinion it would be nothing short of criminal if we should fail to provide for the future of Canada in order to secure immediate returns from the export of such resources. We would be failing to provide for the time when the population of the country will have increased to many times what it is now, when these resources will be the key to building great industries which will make the country a great industrial nation. I submit, as I did last night, that should be our first consideration.
I am alarmed to hear so many of those who support the measure argue from the standpoint of economy. I am appalled to find so many having as their first objective the choice of a route that can be built at the lowest cost, and the finding of a market that will give us the greatest return for these resources at the present time. Some hon. members have spoken of the necessity of maintaining good relations with our neighbour to the south. I wonder what would happen to that relationship if by following a shortsighted policy today we export these resources to United States cities and thereby contribute to the building of great industries

there which become dependent upon them for their existence. Looking ahead a few years when developments in industry within our own country require the use of these resources, we will be forced to choose between cutting off supplies to industries in a neighbouring country which have become dependent upon them for their very existence or providing for our own people. I believe that would be undermining our good relationships with the United States much more than the routing of the pipe line through Canadian territory in order to serve Canadian interests first would jeopardize that relationship at the present time.
Then the argument was placed before us that if we did not grant charters to this and other companies we would be setting up a monopoly. Some hon. members have been inclined to jeer at the position the C.C.F. party has taken, apparently in support of a monopoly. That argument has little weight as far as I am concerned. It has been pointed out already by more than one speaker that the oil and natural gas industry is a monopoly today and is liable to remain so. It has been pointed out that whether we grant charters to one or fifty companies we shall get only one pipe line. These companies, anxious to secure charters, will use those charters to milk the public instead of building pipe lines. They will use those charters to sell stock to the public, and to drive good bargains for themselves or their shareholders with whatever company eventually decides to build the pipe line. There is no question about it; the oil business today is one of the greatest monopolies on this continent; and no matter how many charters we grant we will continue to have a monopoly with respect to the construction of a pipe line through to the coast.
It has been said that if this bill should not pass this house a monopoly would be created. Well, Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of this bill have it within their power to bring in an amendment undertaking in express terms that the pipe line will follow an allCanadian route, and if that were done there would be no further opposition in this house. Practically every hon. member who has spoken has indicated that if the sponsors will state in the bill itself that the pipe line will follow an all-Canadian route there will be no further opposition. So the sponsors have it within their power to secure passage of this legislation and thereby obtain their charter any time they are ready to comply with the opinion of the majority of the people in British Columbia as expressed through the legislature of that province, or any time they are ready to comply with what I believe is the opinion of a majority in this country, and indicate their readiness to follow an all-Canadian route. If

there is to be a monopoly, if a charter is to be granted to only one company, then it is the sponsors of these bills who will be responsible for that monopoly.
The argument also has been advanced that we should let this bill go to a committee before which the principals might appear; and it has been intimated that we might secure from them an undertaking that they will build an all-Canadian pipe line. It was urged that we could get much more information in a committee of that kind. I am not too hopeful as to what we would be likely to get out of such a committee. Judging by the attitude government supporters have taken toward this bill, and having in mind the fact that such a committee would have a majority of government supporters, I do not see much hope of getting any radical amendment of this bill in committee. I believe we would get out of such a committee just what we are getting out of this house. Under the direction and leadership of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who has indicated his support of this bill, Liberal members of that committee would give this bill the same support there that they are giving it in this house at the present time. As far as I can see we would have no reason to hope for any different treatment in the committee than the treatment we are receiving here in the house. In any case, what ground is there for believing that we would get any more from a committee on this bill than we got from the committee which considered the bills passed last year? The bill under which the pipe line is being built to Superior, Wisconsin, at the present time was considered by a committee last year. Hon. members who were on that committee have stated in the house that they were given to understand this was to be an all-Canadian pipe line, and some of them were quite surprised to discover last fall that it was to by-pass such Canadian cities as Winnipeg, Port Arthur and Fort William and go to Superior, Wisconsin. What reason would we have to believe that this bill might get any different treatment?
While I am on that subject, even though the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in the house, I want to say this. Speaking of those who insisted that that pipe line should go to the head of the lakes the minister referred to us as "little Canadians"; and I have no doubt that in his mind he considers all those who are opposing this particular bill also as little Canadians. I can tell the minister that many thousands of those little Canadians are very critical of the action of the government in permitting that pipe line to be routed to Superior, Wisconsin, instead of the head of the lakes; and many thousands of those little Canadians
21, 1950
Alberta Natural Gas Company are living in the minister's own riding. They do not think too highly of his attitude in considering them and others as little Canadians because they prefer to see our natural resources used for the development of Canadian industry, to bring comfort to the Canadian people and to serve Canadian needs first.
In these bills we are continuing to do what we have been doing with all our natural resources. We have been exporting them anywhere and everywhere to build industry in other countries, to make those countries rich to the impoverishment of Canada itself. We have been disposing of our timber, our minerals and our other natural resources in order to reap an immediate benefit from the present, without any regard for the future of Canada and the future generations of this country. We are doing just that in this particular bill.
Another argument that has been raised concerns the route of this pipe line. It is said that will be the responsibility of the government of Alberta. Some of our friends sitting to our left have indicated that the government of Alberta would welcome the incorporation of a large number of companies, so that they could have some choice, or a little competition, in deciding which company should eventually build the pipe line. I want to say here that, in my opinion, the government of Alberta is in a position to grant a charter to whatever company it pleases, and under whatever terms it pleases, whether there is one company with a charter or whether there are fifty. The government of Alberta is in the saddle, and can demand its own terms. I fail to see where any great advantage could accrue to that province by reason of the incorporation of a large number of companies.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like again to appeal to the members of this house to view this particular bill in the light of the needs of Canada and the Canadian people, not just those of us who are living today, but in the light of the future needs and possibilities of this country. This question is of far too great importance to this country to be viewed or to be determined on a narrow party basis. This question, I submit, Mr. Speaker, should cut across political parties. It should be viewed in the light of our responsibility to Canada and to future Canadians.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the course of this debate on the bill to incorporate a company which proposes to export Canadian natural gas first to the United States, there took place a development which was of great significance and caused a great deal of gratification to those of us from British Columbia, or perhaps I should say to most of the members from that province. I

Alberta Natural Gas Company refer to the fact that as the debate developed, this issue of exporting natural gas to the United States first or of keeping it to serve Canada first and then exporting our surplus, was placed squarely on a national plane by the participation in the debate of members from other parts of Canada than British Columbia and Alberta.
The main contribution to that development resulted from the fact that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), took part in the discussion and placed on the record their views about the issue. Their view is that this must be treated as a national issue, and that it is time this House of Commons realized that a national issue is before the country, not merely a matter of local interest to the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. There is at stake a great principle, a matter of great moment, the question of whether or not we are going to adopt now the policy of developing Canada, of building Canada first.
The matter was also placed on a national basis by the statement made by the leader of the opposition in the course of his remarks. It is significant to note that the statement has not been denied since it was made. He said that this is not a private bill, but is in fact a government measure. I refer to what the leader of the opposition said, as reported at page 903 of Hansard:
I am entering this debate at this time because no one with the slightest appreciation of what has taken place can longer regard these bills, and particularly this one, as private bills. It is obvious that they have the support of the government, not simply the concurrence of individual members of the government.
He went on to point out that the bill now before the house was in fact sponsored by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Maybank).
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, some of the remarks-as to local interest and self-interest-which have been made in this debate by those who support the passage of this bill, when they criticized those of us on this side who opposed the bill, take on fresh significance. I refer here particularly to the remarks of the member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) made in the course of this debate, where he referred to local hysteria. His remarks are reported at page 898 of Hansard. He was referring to the arguments advanced by those of us who are opposed to the bill, and he used these words:
There is evidence now that this hysterical, illogical and incorrect thinking is spreading beyond this chamber to other parts of the country. I refer particularly to parts of British Columbia.
Those are the words of the hon. member for Skeena. I should like to ask him, and

perhaps he will answer this question later if he takes part in the debate again, in what parts of British Columbia this hysteria is taking place. Was he referring perhaps to the legislature in that province, which on Friday last unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of a Canadian route for this pipe line? The resolution was introduced by the member for Peace River, and seconded by the member for Prince Rupert, which is in the hon. member's own constituency, and who I believe, although a member of the coalition government, is a coalitionist of Liberal stripe.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman was referring to certain developments which took place recently in the city of Vancouver, when one of the Liberal associations in that city went on record with its views of this discussion down here. It must be admitted, Mr. Speaker, that some of us in the house do think Liberals occasionally become hysterical, particularly when they are talking about their own party, but I did not know the Liberals themselves were yet referring to Liberals as hysterical. I refer to a report in the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, March 18, page 21. It is headed, "Four Liberal MP's attacked for stand". The article reads as follows:
Four Liberal M.P.'s from this area have drawn the censure of division four, Vancouver East Liberal association, "for working against the best interests of B.C." The division directed its criticism against R. O. Campney, Vancouver Centre, Tom Goode, Burnaby-Richmond, William Mott, New Westminster, and J. L. MacDougall, Vancouver-Burrard for "talking in favour of the natural gas pipe line going through the U.S. before going into Vancouver."
That is the end of the article. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why certain others of the Liberal members from British Columbia were not mentioned. I wonder, for instance, why the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) was not mentioned in that report. I think the reason probably is that when he spoke in this debate some two weeks ago it was impossible to say on which side of the issue he stood. I hope that the hon. member will take part in this debate and let us know just where he stands-


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is trying to figure it out right now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in order that those areas in British Columbia in which he professes to have an interest, both as a British Columbian and on behalf of his party, will be able to know where he stands. I wonder also why the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is not mentioned. I think probably the reason is that, since the hon. member was very properly

engaged on government business for his country, lhe was not here in the opening days of the session; and it may well be that he has not yet had the opportunity to speak in this debate.


Mr. Sinclair:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has challenged me, I will tell him that on the long filibuster on both these lines last year-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the hon. member speaking on a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he should state it.


James Sinclair: As the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) did some years ago, he has challenged me-


Mr. Rowe:: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Green:: No; there is no privilege about that.


William Earl Rowe: Make your own speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to make his position clear, he should be given the opportunity to do so.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege, I will hear it.


James Sinclair: My one question of privilege is this. If the hon. member for Kamloops wants to involve me in the debate and wants to challenge me, he should at least give me an opportunity of replying immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member will have that opportunity, Mr. Speaker; and I hope he will avail himself of the opportunity which we on this side of the house are trying to give him.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: After the hon. member for Kamloops is through; not when he is speaking.


James Sinclair: My point of order is this. Having already clearly stated last year where I stand, and having had the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) repeat my remarks this year, all I can say is that the hon. member for Kamloops-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I want to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
21. 1950	969
Alberta Natural Gas Company


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must make a ruling. My ruling is that there is no point of order before the house, and I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops to proceed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that all those members on the other side of the house who wish to do so will avail themselves of the opportunity which we on this side are trying to give them by keeping this debate open-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -while their own members are moving a form of closure. I hope they will avail themselves of the opportunity of telling us where they stand at a time when they can be heard clearly in this house.
We know of course where the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) stand. They spoke yesterday in the course of this debate, and I should like to deal in passing with one or two of the comments they made. They spoke in favour of the bill and thus,
I submit, against the proposition which we advance, namely that the route must be built through Canada first.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Skeena that the Westcoast Transmission Company, contrary to what he says, has clearly shown through the survey which it had made that the Yellowhead route for this pipe line is both feasible and economical. Indeed, he will know, or should know from his knowledge of the geography of that west coast region, that the United States passes over the mountains on the way to the coast via the states of Washington and Idaho are as high as, if not higher than, the route proposed by the Westcoast Transmission Company.
Then the hon. member says that we have no guarantee that the Westcoast Transmission Company will in fact build its route via the Yellowhead but that they may go back and build it via some other route. The fact is that the Westcoast Transmission Company now has before the Alberta board an application in which they have asked for a permit to export via the Yellowhead route. That route is blueprinted, and if they get their permit to export, it will be only over that route. It therefore seems to me that the company is in earnest in stating that it proposes to build that way, and that it is in earnest in spending the money to have the survey made. If that is not sufficient assurance, then we say once more that if that is the point which really bothers hon. gentlemen opposite, all they have to do is give us an assurance, through the sponsors of

Alberta Natural Gas Company the bills, that their companies propose to build it via the Yellowhead, and we will withdraw all objections to those bills.
The hon. member for Cariboo whose constituency would stand to gain immensely if the route is built via the Yellowhead-because his constituency is immediately contributory to the route that the pipe line would then follow -spoke yesterday.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He told us about
Christopher Columbus.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He referred to the fact that in the past the dominion government had ignored certain requests made by the provinces, particularly Manitoba, with respect to railway charters. I would ask the hon. gentleman, who seems to feel that it was not proper conduct on the part of the dominion house to ignore those requests, if he thinks it would be proper conduct on the part of the dominion government to ignore the clear, specific and unanimous request from the legislature of British Columbia that steps be taken to ensure that a gas pipe line be built via a Canadian route; because that is the issue.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Mott:: May I ask the hon. member a question?-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe there is a question of privilege before the house. Do I understand that the hon. member for Cariboo rises on a question of privilege?


George Matheson Murray: I would ask the hon. gentleman if the resolution at Victoria directs anybody to oppose these companies that are now coming before us.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Certainly it does.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. gentleman has had his answer to that question. The resolution has been read on a number of occasions in this house, and I am not going to read it again now. But by necessary implication-


James Sinclair: It would take up time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought the hon. member was interested in getting information.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Tell him about Alexander Mackenzie and Jacques Cartier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The resolution asks for the Yellowhead route. It asks that the line be built via a Canadian route. One of the companies which has its bill now before the house has said in the other place that they intend to build it via the United States route. The other company in its publicity has indicated that it intends to build it via the United States route. We have not yet received an assurance in this house or anywhere else that they will not

build it via the United States route. The implication necessarily is that they will build it by the United States route if they get their charter.


George Matheson Murray: The resolution makes no reference to the bill before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only way in which we can be sure that the route is built through Canada is by exercising what I submit is our responsibility as members of the Canadian parliament, and refusing to incorporate any company which does not give us the assurance that it will build its pipe-line route through Canada first.


William Malcolm Mott: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My time is passing very rapidly.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should now like to refer to a matter which was raised the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which side was he on?
Mr. Fultonr I happened to be speaking at the time. He asked me if I had any figures as to the minimum population necessary before the retail distribution of gas could be economically undertaken. Let me answer that question by asking him another one. The implication in the hon. member's question was that he-[DOT]


William Malcolm Mott: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The implication in the question was that, if the route did go through Kamloops, Kamloops would not get gas. Let me ask him this. If the gas line does not go through Kamloops, will Kamloops ever get gas?
Speaking in this debate yesterday the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) said, as reported at page 902 of Hansard:
Incidentally I wonder if it is fair to mention little places like Keremeos in a debate of this kind. Nothing could be crueler than to dangle before small communities the hope of cheap gas and cheap fuel and then find out that the population is not sufficiently large to justify the expense of the construction of the distribution works involved.
I say to the hon. member for Skeena that under the limitations as to the number of lines and the size of the markets, it certainly can be taken for granted that if the pipe line does not go through these areas they never will get gas; whereas if it does go through those areas there is a chance; and, incidentally, I might point out that no one in this debate, so far as I know, has stated that Keremeos would get gas. What we

have said is that if the Yellowhead route proposed by the Westcoast company is adopted a line will be built through the Merritt, Penticton, Keremeos area, and the workmen in these areas, our businessmen and retailers will get the benefit of the construction.


William Malcolm Mott: Oh, 200 people.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. member think that these 200 people are not important? That is the implication in his question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why does the hon. member not make a speech?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will admit that these communities of 200 people are not as large as the cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, but they are of more importance to Canada and to British Columbia than any of these United States cities.
I should like to refer to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) when he spoke last week. He criticized us for saying that we have the assurance that the Westcoast company intends to build via the Yellowhead route. He asked:	Of what value is any assurance
given to a committee of this house? Mr. Speaker, that is a very strange position for the hon. member to take. We have seen other hon. members take a different position in this debate, because they keep urging us to let this bill go before a committee so that we can get the people behind it there and then they will have an opportunity to give us that assurance. Yet, on the other hand, we find hon. members saying that such assurances are of no value. They may be right; but let me point out that the company which gave that assurance has now taken the next logical step, and, as an earnest of its intentions, has applied to the Alberta board for a permit to export gas via the Yellowhead route.


George Matheson Murray: What about Prince George?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will go along with hon. members this far. This is the place where we should have the assurance-we perhaps should have it from the Westcoast company. But now that we know what the facts are, this is the place where we should get the assurance. For my part I know there are many people throughout Canada, many people in my own province, who agree that we should not let these bills pass until we receive that assurance.
In spite of the obvious heat which is aroused when one considers the purely local interests in the matter, it seems to me that it is also a matter which should be dealt with
21, 1950	971
Alberta Natural Gas Company on the other level, namely, from the standpoint of national interest. This gas pipe line means a potential $100 million expenditure in the Dominion of Canada. It could mean that if it were built in Canada. On the other hand, it could mean the expenditure of some $100 million to the benefit mainly of the United States of America. I do not think that we are being little Canadians, or that we are doing anything other than what we should do in doing our duty as members of parliament in saying that so far as we can do it we shall see that that $100 million is spent here at home.
I should like to refer to the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in that connection, which were made yesterday, because I think he put the position clearly before the house. At page 904 of Hansard the leader of the opposition said this:
There are vast possibilities. In every case of this kind let us realize that cheap fuel means cheap production, and cheap production means not only the possibility of the development of new production within our own country, but also the possibility of export to other parts of the world in highly competitive lines.
And, as the leader of the opposition pointed out, that type of increased new production would go a long way towards solving the vexed question of high freight rates that now so much bedevil our industrial and transportation system in this country. Then on page 910 he summed up as follows-I ask hon. members from all parts of the house, as well as from our own province, to give these words their full value. The leader of the opposition said:
With their enormous resources, let us not measure the demands of British Columbia in terms of the gas they can use today or tomorrow, hut measure it in terms of what could happen there with their raw materials being fabricated in great industries that would use these cheap forms of fuel for the employment of hundreds of thousands, yes, possibly millions of people in that one province alone.
As he concluded he said:
Yes, we should be prepared to export our surplus, but quite frankly our policy should be Canada first in the use of the resources which we possess.
I do not see how any hon. member could fail to be, firstly, inspired by that vision for Canada; and, secondly, I do not see how any hon. member could in fact fail to subscribe to that policy. One only has to consider the enormous potentialities for Canada if this pipe line is built through Canada, and the loss that will be ours if it is built anywhere else, in order to feel himself justified in opposing to the very limit any project of which there is even the risk that the line be built in the United States, and that we may not get the benefit of it. Consider the method of construction. I understand that in connection with these lines it is not a matter of pipe
55946-62J

Alberta Natural Gas Company being sent in there already made into pipe, but rather one of sheet steel being transported to the area where the pipe line construction is taking place. Then they must have there the plant which bends the steel into pipe. It is welded on the spot. That means that there is an immediate prospect of Canadian steel companies being able to supply that sheet steel. I would be prepared to say that-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend speak as an engineer, when he refers to building pipe on the spot?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister knows very well that I am not an engineer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What gave you that idea?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am speaking only as the result of the study and investigation I have been able to give to the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You had better take another look.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then perhaps the minister would tell us how the thing is built when he speaks again in debate. I am by no means an expert.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps the hon. member's information is no worse than the other information he has been giving.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, perhaps the minister, who knows so many things-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the man who is speaking knows so few.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -who knows so many things, but does not always seem willing to share his knowledge with the house as I know we would like to have him share it-perhaps he will make a speech and tell me how wrong I am.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not necessary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We all know how wrong you are. You are wet behind the ears.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How big a pipe can be rolled in Canada, smart man? The only people who roll pipe in Canada-how big can they roll them?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops would give way to the other hon. members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have one other comment I would like to make.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us not miss them, then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can say this, that I have looked into the matter, and-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Into the end of the pipe?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I have spoken to an official of one of the steel companies in Canada, and I am told that the steel companies of Canada would be glad to be invited to tender for the supply of steel for the construction of this line. I can say that of my own knowledge.
I would say that if the line is built in Canada, there is a chance that our steel companies may be invited to tender.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not at this rate,


Edmund Davie Fulton: But if it is built in the United States there is very little chance that our steel companies would be asked to bid. I would go so far as to say that in these projects there should be a requirement, when a Canadian resource is being transported, that Canadian steel companies must be asked to tender on the project. After all, almost a hundred million dollars is involved; there will be many millions of dollars' worth of steel in it. I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are interested in conserving American dollars although it hardly seems so from their attitude tonight. I would go this far, that there should be a requirement that if Canadian bids are at all competitive with American bids, the Canadian bids should be accepted.
Here we have a chance to support a policy of developing Canada, but it calls for a positive effort. If we do not make that effort we will continue to be in an inferior position in comparison with American industry. But if we make the positive effort to conserve our resources and to enable them to be used for Canadian industry, and to make Canadian production less expensive, then gradually our industry and our markets will reach a position of equality in competition with those of the United States. But until we do that, until we take those positive steps, we cannot expect to see our industry and our markets on a basis of equality in competition with those of the United States of America.
When one considers the prospects opened up by the possibility of having this cheap fuel available for power in the area from which I come, power for the city of Vancouver, power to run our industries, power for irrigation and agriculture, power to run the pulp mills and power generally to help us develop our resources, then I say that that prospect alone would justify us in insisting, here and now, while parliament has the opportunity, that it should take the first step by refusing to allow these bills to pass until we have the assurance that this route will serve Canada

first and, having served Canada first, that our surplus should be exported to the United States. But until that is done, until we have that assurance, until we can see the possibility of the work of building Canada, which was started by the fathers of confederation, being brought to a successful conclusion by vastly developing our resources and our markets, and building this pipe line within Canada, then I say that we should not cease our efforts, and should not cease our opposition to these bills.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


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

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



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
575. Government's contribution to the superannuation fund, further amount required, $63,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we are back now to the item we were considering before six o'clock, having to do with superannuated civil servants.
Just before the evening recess I had reminded the committee of the figures placed on Hansard on March 16 showing the large number of retired federal civil servants whose pensions are in the lower brackets. For the purpose of drawing my remarks together I shall repeat only one figure I mentioned earlier; the others can be found by referring to what I said this afternoon. I would point out that there are 4,584 retired civil servants whose pensions are less than $80 a month. This includes in the lowest bracket of all 253 whose pensions are less than $20 a month.
Then, I would add this further item, that out of 4,338 widows of retired civil servants who are on pension, 2,516, or more than 58 per cent, are on pensions of less than $40 a month. I use this figure again, because it is the old age pension figure. It does seem to me that the committee should hang its head in shame when it is pointed out that we pay to servants of the federal government, who have been contributing into pension funds, retirement allowances less than could be obtained on old age pensions.
When the Minister of Finance has dealt with our arguments before, he has taken the position that it would be favouritism on the part of the government to supplement the pensions of these people. The minister indicated that it would not be fair to do it for them without doing it for other people on
Supply-Finance
fixed retirement allowances. I hope that all of us in the house are concerned about the security of all our old people. My position in such matters is well known, so I need not go into that at any length, but surely we have a particular responsibility as a parliament and as a government for the people who have been our employees. Surely we should be giving a lead to other people in the country who feel some responsibility for the pensions of those who work for them.
Another argument that the minister has used has been to the effect that these pensions were being paid on the basis of a contract that these persons had entered into. In other words, they had made certain payments into pension funds, and on the basis of the terms of those funds these were the amounts that they could draw out, and it would not be proper to upset that contractual relation. I want to say it is not very hopeful for the ideals which I trust the Minister of National Health and Welfare has in mind for proper old age security if that idea is prevailing in the very important part of the government that is in the mind of the Minister of Finance. What we have to consider in the whole business of dealing fairly with old people of any group, and particularly our own employees, is that having served their day and generation, having done what was their responsibility, having paid in whatever they were required to pay, when the time for retirement comes consideration should be given to their need of a decent standard of living.
It is simply impossible to justify our paying pensions of these small amounts to any number of our employees, and the tragedy is all the worse when you realize the numbers there are. I want to point out that these people are scattered across the country. They are not concentrated in any one area, which means that they are not a political force in the sense that that phrase is sometimes used. Hon. members are aware that I have risen a good many times on this matter in the house. I want to remind the house that in the whole of Manitoba there are only 386 retired civil servants and only 186 widows of retired civil servants now on pension from the federal government.


An hon. Member:: How many in Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are 186 retired civil servants and 74 widows of civil servants on federal pension in Saskatchewan. The figures for all the provinces are to be found at page 834 of Hansard of this session, and also for the United States, the British West Indies, overseas, and so on. I want to make the point-and it is true not only for myself but also for others who have taken part in the

Supply-Finance
debates on this matter on other occasions- that the number of people in our own constituencies who are affected is relatively small. Therefore we are conscious of the fact that they do not carry great political weight; that seems to be their principal handicap, but their case is just as deserving as if their numbers were much greater. When we argue on their behalf we are arguing a cause because we believe it to be just and right. The thing that has pleased me in some of the former debates on this question has been the number of members who have risen in support of this cause. I have had pretty heavy correspondence with superannuated civil servants and their associations in various parts of the country, for example, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Victoria, and I know from this correspondence that they have been in touch with their members in this house, and were in touch with them in particular just before the election of last June. They had assurances at that time from practically all of their members that they would support their case when it was raised on the floor of the House of Commons. I hope that members of the house, and particularly those on the government side who gave categorical assurances to these people that they would support their cause and their claim for a cost of living bonus or other supplement, will implement that promise now and call upon the minister to .reconsider his position.
I have pointed out before, and I will do so again in passing, that I know of at least three .governments that have tried to do something. The province of Saskatchewan and the province of Newfoundland have both made provision for a supplement or cost of living bonus to their retired civil servants in the lower brackets. The amounts are not large in either case, but they mean a great deal to those people. Surely if these two provinces can do something like this the central government at Ottawa ought to be able to do it. The third government which I know has been trying for years to improve'the position of its retired civil servants is the government of the United Kingdom. The act at Westminster which took into consideration the fact that retired civil servants needed some improvement in their position goes back to the period of the wartime government, but it was amended a few years ago to improve the position of these people. From time to time I have asked about every question I can think of in connection with this matter.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to know that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is aware of the fact I have been asking these questions.

I suppose it has been one of his jobs, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, to try to find the answers.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope he will realize that not only has he some responsibility to the minister to whom he is parliamentary assistant, but that he also has some responsibility to the people back in Coast-Capilano.


James Sinclair: Quite right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No doubt he promised he would do everything he could for them as to this matter. I see he is shaking his head the wrong way, indicating that he did not make any such promise. There were a lot out there who did, and I would suggest that if the hon. member for Coast-Capilano did not do that, the other members out there who promised to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and to do everything they could might do well to get the hon. member for Coast-Capilano on their side.
One of the questions I asked on one occasion was as to whether or not this matter had been referred to any body for advice. I was given the information that it had been referred to an advisory committee that deals with these matters. I was hopeful that would result in something, but I was never able lo get any information as to whether that committee gave advice or what it was. I was told, for example, that this simply had to be a matter of government policy. I urge the minister to reconsider the whole position.
When I rose to speak on the question at ten minutes to six this afternoon, it was not my intention to speak for more than a few minutes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You have spoken for twenty minutes now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I felt at that time perhaps this was not the day to do this job and get the consideration it deserves. This is one of those days that we run into time and time again when time is of the essence and we are pressed to shorten our remarks, but we cannot always be expected to do that with these important measures. I felt then it might be that some of us could find a day a little later on in the session when it might be possible to go into the matter more fully. The way in which the minister dealt with the matter just before six o'clock, however, when he told me I would have two or three or four more occasions during this session to deal with it, indicating that he did not feel it needed to be taken very seriously, made me feel then that I should say a few more words, and that perhaps I might prompt others to join me in this presentation in the hope that we can yet

persuade the minister that it is too serious a matter for parliament to be paying 253 of our retired civil servants pensions of less than $20 a month, and the other figures I have given.
I insist that it is time for some adjustment to be made on behalf of these people.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the minister that it seems to me we have an injustice here, or at least an inequity. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I gained the impression from the minister's remarks this afternoon that he was brushing aside this whole question. I realize the minister is rather apt to speak "off the cuff" like that, and does not always mean to be as tough as he sounds. Here, I think, is a case that should be reconsidered by the government.
I intend to take only a minute or two, but let me put two or three reasons before the committee. One is the difference in the value of our dollar today as compared with the value at the time most of these people made their contributions. At that time they believed their superannuation would be sufficient to enable them to live decently. Now, with the change in the value of the dollar, they find themselves getting perhaps forty or fifty per cent, in purchasing power, of what they had expected to obtain; and they have no way of improving their position unless they can persuade the government to take some steps to help them out. It is put very well, I think, in a letter I had from one of them in my own city of Vancouver, who said:
. . . our payments to the fund during our years of service are now being liquidated at 40 cents on the dollar due to the difference in purchasing power as compared to 1939. It is not by any means what we paid for.
There is this further point in their favour, that during the war years bonuses were added to civil service salaries, but apparently for purposes of superannuation those bonuses were not taken into account. As a result the civil servants who retired at that time and under those conditions have lost out as compared with others. Finally there is the fact that some of the other nations have met this situation. The United Kingdom passed legislation called the Increased Pensions Act which made some provision for retired civil servants in a position similar to that of our own civil servants who are asking that something be done at this time.
There are various other reasons, of course. There is the fact that in most cases these people cannot qualify for old age pension, and many of them are widows. But quite apart from these sentimental reasons I do think they have at least a case for reconsideration by the government, and I hope that
Supply-Finance
before the end of this session this whole question will be reconsidered by the cabinet and something done to ease the lot of these former employees of the nation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the interjection I made this afternoon I had no intention, of course, of brushing off this question. I had hoped that in the consideration of these final supplementary estimates we might follow the usual practice and direct our attention not primarily to matters of policy but to the actual additional expenditures and their explanation-. I would be very happy to discuss this or any other question at length when my own estimates are called, which I think would be the more usual time to do it. We have done it in the past and I shall be happy to do it again, but I think that is really the time, not when we are asking for approval of an item of $63,000 to provide for a too-conservative estimate of the government's contribution to the superannuation fund. I realize that under the rules of the house it is open to any hon. member to raise any question relating to the superannuation of civil servants, but again I would appeal for the co-operation of hon. members in restricting observations to the actual final supplementary votes asked for here. If we attempt to cover the whole range of items I despair of being able to get these estimates through within the time I should think the committee would consider reasonable.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I want to ask a question which can be answered by a straight yes or no. Is the government paying a cost of living bonus to these civil servants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Mr. McLure:: If we should allow these items to pass tonight without discussing them as we should, what assurance can the minister give that we will have an opportunity to discuss them later? I remember that last session I agreed to such a request for some reason or other, thinking I could bring up the matter at another time, but I never did have another opportunity. We should have some assurance right now that if these items go through tonight we shall have every chance to discuss these matters later.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only give this assurance, that for the past two or three weeks my colleagues and I have been trying to get down to -a discussion of the main estimates for the coming year. The house, within its rights, has preferred to make speeches on general questions rather than consider the details of the expenditures. My own department is now before the committee. I shall be happy at as early a date as possible to get down to a discussion of the details of the department,

Supply-Finance
which happens to deal with this matter of superannuation. There is a very large item in my estimates covering the contribution by the government to the superannuation fund. That goes for the other departments as well; but it simply cannot be done if the house is not willing to co-operate. Without desiring to offend anyone, I suggest that that really depends upon the desire of private members to get down to a consideration of the details of the estimates and not take too much time discussing general principles on individual items.
I reiterate, however, that tonight we are considering the final estimates of the year, the estimates which traditionally make provision for cleaning up liabilities already incurred under existing votes in which, for one reason or another, there was an underestimation. There will be, first, the opportunity on the main estimates; second, an opportunity on the main supplementary estimates which are usually brought in two or three weeks before the end of the session; and finally an opportunity to discuss special matters on the final supplementaries at the end of the fiscal year. So there are at least three opportunities; but I repeat that it is in the hands of the house. Nothing would please the government better than to get down to a consideration of the expenditures item by item; but what happens? We have an item here of $63,000 which is really a vote to cover a too-conservative estimate of the contribution of the government to the superannuation fund because there were more promotions, or more people retired, or for some other reasons. Instead of considering whether the Minister of Finance was right or wrong in his estimate, however, we enter upon a debate upon the desirability of superannuated civil servants receiving some addition to their superannuation. It is within the rules, of course, but it is not taking into consideration the particular item of expenditure now before us. That is all I can say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a word-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is exactly what happens when we are on the estimates; we are told to sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That doesn't bother me.
The minister will recall that when I rose before six o'clock the words I used and my whole tone of voice implied that I was giving him fair warning that we were going to deal with this at the proper time. It was only because of what I thought was the offhand attitude the minister took toward the matter that I felt that warning needed to be driven

home, and I trust we have done that effectively.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All I can say is that I very seldom hold up my own estimates, but I must have done that by my interjection before six o'clock.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not trying to hold up the estimates, but in spite of the teacher's lecture I want to ask this very simple question. Are the mounted police concerned under this item, when the main estimates are being considered? I want to talk about them at the proper time, which I think is not now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry, but there was someone speaking behind me, and I did not hear my hon. friend's question.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was wondering if the superannuated mounted policemen come under this gen eraT item when we come to it? I am not going to speak on it now, but I am then.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Subject to correction, I think the mounted police superannuation fund is a special fund under justice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
576. Servicing of public debt-commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrars' fees, etc.-further amount required, $20,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the government contemplate any financing in the market this year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a question I cannot answer at the moment. I shall have to make the usual answer: it is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course. There are a number of maturities this year, as my hon. friend knows.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Unemployment Insurance Act-
583. Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund-further amount required, $2,500,000.
Arthur Leroy Smith: This is $2,500,000, and is not peanuts, such as we were talking about a few moments ago. It is listed as the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, a further amount required. I hate to appear to be captious about it, but it is a sum of two and a half million dollars. What I want to know is, why is it that in these estimates we need a sum of that size? I assume it is for liabilities incurred, but it does seem to be a tremendous amount of money.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund in conformity with the statute.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why does it appear in the supplementary estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I might answer my hon. friend. It is an underestimate. The first estimate was made about 14 months in advance as to what the contribution would be, and it was dependent upon the level of employment. The government's contribution up to the end of February was $18,159,832. The main estimates contained an estimated expenditure of $18,750,000, and there was $250,000 supplementary for Newfoundland, which was really part of the main estimates. It would appear now that for March and April, in order to cover the contribution of the government, there will be an additional two and a half million dollars required.


William Joseph Browne: For March, but not April.


Douglas Charles Abbott: March, yes, that is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This amount of $2,500,000 has a direct relationship to unemployment in Canada at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No relationship at all.


Arthur Leroy Smith: None whatever?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would indicate perhaps a higher level of employment than we had anticipated.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is by way of contribution, and has nothing to do with the payment of benefits?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct, in order to maintain the government's contribution to the fund.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Maintain your proportion of the main fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In accordance with the requirements of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It has nothing to do with the payment of benefits or anything of that kind?	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Correct.


John George Diefenbaker: I was interested in the latter part of the minister's remark. He has said he was not used to holding up his own estimates, and he states that this is an underestimate made 14 months ahead. Apparently at that time those in charge estimated that unemployment would be greater than it now is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; this is the government's share under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think the government pays one-fifth of the contribution, and four-fifths are paid by the employer and employee. This is the government's one-fifth, or whatever it is. If
Supply-Labour
it means anything, it means there were more people employed and making contribution to the unemployment insurance fund than we estimated last year.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not know what the minister means when he says "if it means anything," it means so and so. What does he mean by that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, strike out the words "if it means anything."


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will you categorically make this statement, that this sum is necessary because of increased employment in Canada? Does the minister want to do that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, or increased wages; one or the other was higher than was estimated.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Has it anything to do with the increase in the level of charges, that is, those persons who are getting this insurance?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend knows better than I do that the unemployment insurance fund is made up of an equal contribution from employer and employee, and a contribution by the government. The government's amount of this contribution depends upon the wages earned in insured industry, and the government's contribution of course is dependent upon that factor. In January of 1949, when these estimates were completed, it was estimated that the government's contribution to this fund would be something of the order of eighteen and three-quarter million dollars. To comply with this statutory obligation, we will need something of the order of two and a half million on top of that, owing to either a greater number of people employed or to people being employed at higher rates of pay. That is as far as I can go in explaining it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Has it anything to do with lifting the level up, and therefore biinging in a greater number of people which we did just a week ago? Has that any bearing on it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure I am clear on what my hon. friend's point is.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It will be remembered that some time ago we made a change, and said a person could have unemployment insurance if he did not earn more that a certain amount. Then a short time ago we raised that ceiling.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is under item 585, and there is $1,500,000 to cover that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That has no bearing on this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No bearing on this item.

Supply-Labour


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, the minister gave me a straight answer on the other question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
584. To authorize and provide for payment of unemployment assistance to residents of Newfoundland' within the terms set forth under vote 681 in the supplementary estimates (Newfoundland) 1949-50, as authorized by the Appropriation Act. No. 7, 1949-further amount required, $700,000.
William Joseph Browne: Is the Minister of Labour in a position to state whether labour conditions in Newfoundland have improved recently?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend, who represents a riding in Newfoundland, probably has as deep an appreciation of the situation there as I have. If I might say this to him, arising out of the act of confederation, the people without employment in Newfoundland have probably been treated better than at any time in the history of Newfoundland. I think some of the conditions that exist there should be pointed out. My hon. friend knows that the Waibana iron ore mines in Newfoundland have lost the market in Great Britain to a great extent.


William Joseph Browne: Have lost it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I always like to give myself a little out. You should not bang the door in your own face. Then, the lumber situation is somewhat similar. The market for lumber in Great Britain has been lost. Newfoundland has also, temporarily I hope, lost the market for salt fish.


John George Diefenbaker: Page the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know my hon. friend sits there with a satanic laugh on his face.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Humphrey Mitchell: Do not be too self-conscious.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not ordinarily rise to object to anything. I know that my hon. friend is the greatest authority in the house on things satanic. I am not going to ask for withdrawal.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just said that in a kindly way to my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister meant
"sardonic", I presume.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, I meant "satanic". I am frank to admit that my hon. friend could take the first word I used or the last two words; I could not. But to get back to important things, as my hon. friend knows already there has been, for some reason unknown even to the experts, a smaller catch of fish on the Atlantic coast. I do not know of any parliamentary
tMr. Abbott.]
institution that can pass a law to stop the fish from going from North America to Norway. I take the view of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that we are passing through a period which is going to be a difficult one, largely brought about by international monetary complications, but I am convinced in my own mind that by taking a positive approach we shall overcome all the difficulties confronting this nation.
I think the easiest way to get a depression is to preach about one. I have a vivid recollection, at the conclusion of the war, of some of our experts, in North America particularly, predicting eight million out of employment in the United States, and of some of my own experts predicting 600,000 unemployed in the Dominion of Canada. We all know that situation did not come to pass largely because of the positive approach made by this government in the reconversion period at that time, I am convinced in my own mind that given a liberal approach, you understand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister understand?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend does not understand anything.


An hon. Member:: He has company.


Humphrey Mitchell: He is an expert on nothing and he talks about everything. When I said "a liberal approach" I meant a liberal mental approach to the problems concerning this nation. I am frank to admit that at this very moment approximately twenty per cent of the employable people of Newfoundland are unemployed. I think the hon. member from that province will admit, as will most of the good people in Newfoundland, that the conditions there at the moment are somewhat improved and that they are better than they were, we will say, in 1935 to 1940.


William Joseph Browne: Thirty-five or forty years ago?


Humphrey Mitchell: No; I am not as old as that. From 1935 to 1940.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now have I answered your question?


An hon. Member:: That is not saying much.


Humphrey Mitchell: I look forward to the time when we shall recover those markets that were enjoyed by Newfoundland in the last ten years.


William Joseph Browne: I appreciate the minister's attempt to answer the question, but I am afraid that he is not familiar with the situation. When the matter comes up again I hope that he will be much better

informed than he is at the present time. As a matter of correction for the record, I should point out to him that there would not be 20 per cent of the total number of unemployed in Canada resident in Newfoundland; because if the total number is nearly 400,000, that would mean nearly 80,000 people unemployed in Newfoundland. I believe that the number is nearer 12,000 than 80,000, although I understand that is an increase over what it was a few weeks ago.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am afraid my hon. friend is not so well informed either. At the moment there are 19,000 unemployed in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: The minister is in a position to know. I expected that answer in the first place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
LEGISLATION House of Commons-
589.	Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms-further amount required, $8,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do all of the staff in the House of Commons come under the workmen's compensation board? Are they all covered, including the sessional stenographers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I could not answer that question. These are the Sergeant-at-Arms' estimates. I would have to inform myself. I shall be glad to get that information and give it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE General services-
590.	Miscellaneous maintenance and adjustments (war of 1914-18)-further amount required, $15,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just what is this for?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This item covers the maintenance of war graves and the erection of memorials to world war I casualties.


George Alexander Drew: Before we go on with these defence estimates, it may be helpful to know when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are going to be considered again.


Alphonse Fournier: I could not tell that this evening, because the minister himself is, I understand, leaving on Saturday for overseas in order to attend a conference. How long he will be there, I do not know. Then we shall be having Easter vacation. I am afraid we shall not work up to the defence estimates before we come back after the Easter recess.


George Alexander Drew: Why can they not be taken up on Friday?
Supply-National Defence


Alphonse Fournier: Up to now we have given two days on external afEairs and two days on defence.


George Alexander Drew: No, only one day on defence.


Alphonse Fournier: Requests have been made to have the estimates of other departments considered. I thought it was understood at the beginning of the session that we would try to have a few days on each department for a general discussion. If we stay on national defence too long, I cannot see how other important departments, such as the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Veterans Affairs, would have much time. I will, however, consult my colleagues about this matter.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance took some time to speak about the desire to get ahead with these estimates and left some impression that the effort to do this was not being facilitated, I would point out that it is this uncertainty about things being dealt with that is causing a great deal of confusion and is lengthening the debate. In this particular case the Minister of National Defence is going overseas. His estimates are before the committee. Surely the wise thing to do would be to say to us that the estimates of the Department of National Defence will be dealt with on Friday. We would then know that; and if that were so, there would then be no occasion to discuss these estimates now. But if consideration of these estimates is going to be put off and then just rushed in at the last moment, as has been done year after year, hon. members are in duty bound to discuss national defence when they have the opportunity presented to them at this time.


Alphonse Fournier: I am asking myself if the leader of the opposition is quite fair. I have tried to accommodate hon. members by bringing forward the departments that were requested by them. External affairs was the first one; the second one was national defence. For three weeks I have tried to get other departments into supply and have not succeeded. We have had long discussions on everything that was brought up before the house. I am not reproaching anybody with regard to that. This is a free parliament composed of free members. But it is necessary for us to attend to certain items of business that must go through in the next few days. On the order paper there are four bills that are to be studied and considered, and an effort must be made to pass them before March 31 if we do not wish to have them lapse. There are two in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, one
980	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence concerning the Agricultural Products Act and the other the Agricultural Prices Support Act. If they are not considered before March 31, they lapse. There is one in the name of the Minister of Finance, concerning rental controls. Really, I am not going to try to give a lesson to anybody, but I thought when we got into supply it was to consider the items that were called by the chairman. My experience is that very few hon. members get down to details on these estimates. They make many long speeches. If that is their way of looking at it I have no objection, but I cannot keep the same department on ad nauseam to listen to speeches, especially when we are on specific items.


George Alexander Drew: I think it would be just as well to deal very clearly with this subject, right now, Mr. Chairman. The minister who has just spoken is evading the issue by suggesting that there are bills that-


Alphonse Fournier: Why should I evade the issue?


George Alexander Drew: -require to be dealt with. I think hon. members recognize that they require to be dealt with. That has nothing to do with the point that has been raised. The minister has just said that he is going to call other estimates on Friday.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; he is going to call these bills on Friday.


Alphonse Fournier: I am sorry if I did not
make myself clear. This is not final. On Thursday we will take up the resolutions that are on the order paper to advance them one stage and to give the bills first reading. Then on Friday we might take up second readings. If we cannot do it on Friday we shall proceed next Tuesday because Monday will be private members' day.


Howard Charles Green: Why don't you take Monday?


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggests that we take away a whole day from private members in order to make speeches. I do not feel that I could do that, and deprive those hon. members of the opportunity of making speeches. But coming back to the estimates-


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Minister of Agriculture is taking the whole week in High River making speeches.


Alphonse Fournier: Why don't you wait until the Minister of Agriculture comes back?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You told us a moment ago that these things have to go


through by March 31. The Minister of Agriculture is in Canada. He is not even here to put them through.


Alphonse Fournier: My hon. friend did not follow-


Arthur Leroy Smith: He is making political speeches in High River.


Alphonse Fournier: My hon. friend did not follow what I was saying. The difficulty is that the opposition wants national defence estimates to be brought on. Up until now I have done my best to hand over the Minister of National Defence to discuss them, but nobody has discussed the estimates. I stayed here on Friday night. What was discussed? What was discussed was the method by which the estimates should be considered, and everybody admitted that it should not be a committee of supply, it should be a special committee. And that took nearly all evening on Friday, until there was a vote on it.
I shall do my best to try to have national defence estimates come up again, but I cannot give any assurance at this stage.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to let this matter pass in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to let the matter pass in this way. The estimates of the Department of National Defence have been brought forward. They call for an expenditure of $628 million, not $425 million.	.


Alphonse Fournier: You are speaking of commitments.


George Alexander Drew: They call for the expenditure of $628 million, of which $425 million is estimated as required for the current year. But this house is called upon to deal with a commitment of $628 million. The estimates were brought forward for discussion only on one day, and there is no hon. member here who in any way needs to feel any sense of apology or the need of explanation for devoting not one day, but many days to a sum of that kind, which is not represented alone by the money involved, but is represented by the nature of the requirement itself.
If this passes without any assurance at this time as to when these estimates shall come before us again we have no way of knowing that this particular subject will not be brought before us in the last few days before the session is expected to close. That is what has happened over and over again.

In so far as the estimates are concerned, the minister has said that apparently we do not want details. I assure the minister that we do want details, and we are going to get details, and we are going to get exact details, and they are going to be asked for in a way that they were not asked for before.
The way to find out what the details are that are required is to assure us that these estimates will be called, and then during the time that the minister is away the figures and the statements which will be required to deal with these estimates in the house can be prepared. That would actually indicate some willingness on the part of the government to submit these very large sums to an examination in the house. But unless an assurance can be given as to when we are going to examine national defence estimates again hon. members have not only a right but are in duty bound to avail themselves of every opportunity to discuss this subject.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May 1 appeal again for an orderly discussion of the business which is before the house? There are three items under the heading of national defence to clean up details. One is to provide an extra amount for the purchase and erection of headstones for world war I graves. We can criticize that item if we wish. The second one is to pay a pension to Mrs. Alice Smuck. The third is to provide $4 million to purchase certain admiralty property in St. John's, Newfoundland. The Minister of National Defence is not here. I am prepared to give a fairly full explanation of these three items. These are the items we are asking to have voted tonight. It is important to public business to get these supplementary items voted. There are two items in particular, one of which is the item for unemployment relief in Newfoundland, which it is essential, if these commitments are to be met, should be passed by this house and by the other place and receive royal assent within the next day or two. I would appeal to the house. The Minister of National Defence expects to be away for about a week on this matter of the meeting of the defence ministers on the Atlantic pact. I feel sure that an early opportunity will be afforded to resume the discussion of the general defence estimates for the coming year. All I am asking tonight on national defence is the three items that I have outlined.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, after all there is a very simple way of dealing with this, as indicated when I rose the first time. A discussion of this in detail, or a general discussion, could be brought up on these items.
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Charles Abbott: It could not be on these items.


George Alexander Drew: A discussion in detail or a general discussion which could be brought up on these items would not be called for if there was some assurance as to when we shall be dealing with the general items of national defence for the coming year. Will the minister give us at least this assurance, that the estimates of the Department of National Defence now before the house will be brought before the house again definitely before the end of April?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, when the house convenes on the 17th I think we will have- I cannot give a definite assurance because that is-


George Alexander Drew: Oh, well-


Alphonse Fournier: Will the hon. member please refer to standing order 17 which reads:
Whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.
I had forgotten that rule completely, and that order since I have been leading the house. I have tried to be pleasant to all hon. members, but to ask me a month ahead to give an assurance that on such and such a day we shall have these estimates before the house is asking something that I cannot give.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this again is simply trying to becloud the issue. The point that we have before us is perfectly simple. The estimates of the Department of National Defence calling for a commitment of $628 million are before us.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not tonight.


George Alexander Drew: They are before the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not tonight.


George Alexander Drew: In so far as this house is concerned it is in a position tonight to discuss national defence. The question before the house is whether we are going to have the general estimates before us. I have asked a perfectly simple question: Will those general estimates be brought forward by the end of April? It is not an answer to say that the government can call government business at any time. If the government continues to do it that way, then there certainly will be the kind of confusion we have had ever since this session began.
In this particular case, if there is a bona fide intention really to deal with national defence estimates, then the assurance can be

Supply-National Defence given that they will be brought forward by the end of April. Because, assuming that the house may expect to terminate its business before the first of July, that does not give too long to deal with estimates which will require that we wish to proceed with these etsimates on arms, equipment and other details which will be examined on this occasion.


Alphonse Fournier: All I can say is that the leader of the opposition may be assured that we wish to proceed with these estimates in good faith; and the minister himself would wish to proceed. He is the one who asked to come on early in the session to discuss his estimates. We will do our best to bring them up as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: No; can we not let this be an example of how things can be done in a businesslike way? It is not businesslike for the House of Commons to use this device to prevent an inquiry into items totalling $625 million. And do not let anyone suggest that these devices have not been used. I went back over the dates the minister put forward the other day, as to when the details of estimates had been brought forward, and in every case it was just before the end of the session.
In this particular case we want to be sure that there is going to be time to get into the real details of expenditures of the Department of National Defence. The minister will be away a week. He will be back by the first of April, according to that statement. That being so, there will be four weeks. All I have asked is that we have the assurance that the estimates for the Department of National Defence will be called within the following four weeks, by the end of April. Surely that can be given. If that is so then, so far as I am concerned, these present estimates can be passed without question.


Alphonse Fournier: I will do my very best.


George Alexander Drew: That simply amounts to a statement that we are not going to have any assurance upon which we can carry on orderly business in this House of Commons.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition as usual is certainly not serious
in that. He has just been complaining that in past years the estimates were brought down at the end of the session. This year the government has done its best, all that is possible, to enter as many departments as possible at the beginning of the session, so that the estimates can be studied right at the start. He was the one, with others, to delay getting into supply.


Some hon. Members:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
592.	To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, total additional commitments for this purpose for the current year of $7,000,000 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1949-50 will not exceed' a further amount of $4,000,000.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Is this real estate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is admiralty property.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would the minister complete the statement he began a few moments ago in connection with this item. What about the extra $3 million? We see that $4 million is to be spent somewhere.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The total purchase price of these properties is about $7 million. It is expected that $3 million of that can be provided out of the existing vote for the Department of National Defence, and a supplementary of $4 million will be required.


George Alexander Drew: What properties are under consideration in this case?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Buckmaster's field, naval barracks and garage; naval dockyard, magazine and ordnance depots, oil field depot and tank farm-


George Alexander Drew: Let us have the details of the amounts in each case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is $7 million in total.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, but after all, there is a very clearly established practice in regard to entries of this kind. Let us have the details in each case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have here a long table which, perhaps, I could place on Hansard. But, no, I shall read it in:
Description
Buckmaster's field, naval barracks and garage ....
Naval Dockyard	
Magazine and ordnance depots	
Original
Building
Cost
Land
Cost
Original cost of remaining Buildings
Total cost of remaining assets

Then perhaps I might give the column showing the original building costs:
Original
Building
Description	Cost
Oil field depot and tank farm	 $1,354,000
Wharves	 806,000
N/A teacher and offices	 474,000
Floating dock site	 355,000
Hospital	 730,000
Administrations and quarters	 515,000
Stores and harbour craft buildings	 807,800
South side machine shops	 437,000
Dockyard cafeteria	 122,000
W/T Stations-Bay Bulls Road	 111,500
Cape Spear P.W.S.S. & D.E.M.S	 25,000
A/S Training centre	 28,000
Fort Amherst, P.W.S.S. & C.M. Station..	38,850
South Side Barracks	 740,000
Then, the total cost of the remaining assets is $12,681,646 for which we have undertaken to pay $7 million.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was all this property purchased from the British government, and, if so, was it paid for in Canadian or American dollars?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is to be purchased from the British government, and it will be paid for in Canadian dollars; and the Canadian dollars, of course, will be expended in Canada.


William Joseph Browne: Where is the hospital located?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information. I am not familiar with the location.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
593.	General administration, further amount required, $6,500.
Jean-François Pouliot: Before this is carried, I have a duty to fulfil. May I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for one of his gracious accomplishments in appointing the Hon. George Black, K.C., and the Hon. J. L. Bowman, K.C., two former Speakers, as members of the privy council of Canada.
The late Mr. Bennett was reluctant to do that. When the former prime minister was approached he said to leave it in his hands, but nothing was done. I remember that those two gentlemen, with the present incumbent of that high position, have constituted the three most distinguished, fearless, fair and just Speakers whom I have seen occupy the chair since I have been a member of the House of Commons.
It is precisely because the Hon. Mr. Black and the Hon. Mr. Bowman were fearless that the late Mr. Bennett refused to appoint them to the privy council, as all other Speakers had been. Therefore I compliment the Prime Minister for having been gracious enough to
Supply-Privy Council appoint to the privy council those two barristers of high standing who so well fulfilled their duties as Speakers of the House of Commons. May I add that while the previous leader of the opposition, who was approached in the matter, apparently did nothing, the present one was favourable to the suggestion, and I give him credit for it. Better late than never.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
594.	To provide for expenses of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences-further amount required, $26,041.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 594 provides for expenses of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. I should like to ask in the first place when it may be expected that the commission may complete its sittings and render its report, if the government has had any intimation in that respect. In the second place, I should like to ask for some details of this item. Details are not given for the $26,041.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will have to answer the second question first. I have no information to give my hon. friend as to the first question. I would have to communicate his question to the Prime Minister. The $26,041 which is requested in this supplementary estimate is required to reimburse another vote, 100, in the Department of Finance which approved the payment of $26,041. That is the contingencies vote. The total expenditures that are estimated in this fiscal year will be first the vote of $93,525 together with the additional amount of $26,041, making a total of $119,566 up to the end of the current fiscal year. My hon. friend will recall that there is an additional amount in the estimates which I tabled a month ago for the coming fiscal year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May we take it from the minister's statement that the $119,000 liquidates all commitments in respect of the royal commission to March 31?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is my understanding. Yes, that is correct; that is what it is intended to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When can we get an answer from the Prime Minister as to the other part of the question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will bring my hon. friend's question to his attention, although I do not know whether he will be in a position to answer it either.


Mr. Knight:: Is the work of the commission finished? Is it still holding hearings?

Supply-Public Works


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand it is still holding sittings. I am afraid I am not personally up to date with exactly what it is doing. It comes under the privy council office, and I have no doubt that the question can be asked when the main estimates are being considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
596. Ottawa-Prime Minister's residence-repairs, alterations and improvements, $35,000.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Obviously this is not all it will cost to put the Edwards house into suitable condition for the Prime Minister's residence. Can the Minister of Public Works say how much the total estimate is for this work? I am not complaining. I think it should be done, but I have heard that it would have been better to have pulled the house down and built a new house facing the other way so that the Prime Minister would have had the view of the Ottawa river instead of having the kitchens facing that way. Can the Minister of Public Works give us any information?


Alphonse Fournier: From the notes I have here I can hardly give a definite estimate, but I am told that the alterations and improvements to the main building will cost $135,000, and that is only an estimate. Then there are improvements to the other buildings on the grounds, and improvements to the grounds in the amount of some $30,000. I have a note here that nobody can give a definite estimate of the cost of trying to make a new house out of this old one. The $35,000 for which I am asking here is an amount that was allotted from my general vote in public works by the treasury board so that it could be expended during this fiscal year.


Howard Charles Green: What would a new house have cost?


Alphonse Fournier: It all depends on the kind of house.


Howard Charles Green: A suitable house.


Alphonse Fournier: I could not give any estimate.


Mr. Hodgson:: Can the minister tell us what "the property cost in the first place?


Alphonse Fournier: Speaking from memory, it cost somewhere between $130,000 and $140,000. The property was expropriated, and there is a judgment in the exchequer court.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That does not include the furnishings?


Alphonse Fournier: I have no estimate at all on that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As the Prime Minister's indemnity will not be sufficient to allow him to

maintain this establishment I would judge that the government will look after the upkeep of it.


Alphonse Fournier: It will be dealt with properly, and will be maintained by the Department of Public Works and kept in a good state of repair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope that when the minister is considering the upkeep of the Prime Minister's home he will also consider the home of the leader of the official opposition, because I think they should both be looked after by the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister to raise his voice a little? We could not hear his recent answers over here. Did I understand him to say the price paid by the government for this property when they acquired it about four years ago was $135,000? A question was asked about the original cost. I take it the answer did not relate to the original cost of the construction of the house, but to the original cost to the government when it acquired the property. Is that correct?


Alphonse Fournier: The government proceeded by way of expropriation in this case, and evidence was heard before the exchequer court. I cannot recall the exact amount, but speaking from memory it would be somewhere between $130,000 and $140,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then trying to see the picture whole, to the $130,000 we add something like another $130,000 to date, so that the cost to date runs in the neighbourhood of $275,000.


Alphonse Fournier: No. This is an estimate for $35,000 which is the amount that we expect to spend before the 31st of March of this year. We have retained as architects the firm of Allward and Gouinlock of Toronto. As to the estimate of the total cost, nobody before starting work on the building could give a final estimate of what the cost would be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister mentioned another item of expenditure earlier as well.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was a year or two ago. It was expropriated four or five years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have the $130,000 to $140,000 to which the minister has referred and then this item of $35,000, but if I heard the minister correctly he said that there was another item as well of $100,000.


Alphonse Fournier: I was asked the question whether I could give an estimate of what the work will cost on this residence. I said that I am told-and this would not be final- that it will amount to some $135,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then the total cost to the government by the time the property has been completely renovated will be about $275,000.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not give any definite figure. Personally I do not know because I have not found anybody yet who can give a final estimate of the cost.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, no one in this house criticized the idea of acquiring a home for the Prime Minister. When the announcement was made in the house by the then acting prime minister a reservation was made by some as to the selection of this particular property for the purpose. The question will be present in the minds of many members as to whether this was the best residence available at the cost. I am bound to say that it amazes me as a member of the house that the government has embarked upon this project without having some idea of the cost of renovation before they started.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister has given it to you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Public Works, a very experienced minister, has just told us that he did not even at this stage-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the hon. member will admit that we are now discussing an item of $35,000 for repairs, alterations and improvements to the Prime Minister's residence. I do not think the hon. member should go back and question the decision as to whether this or another house should have been bought.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am entirely in order in trying to get to the bottom of this project. Here we are asked to vote another $35,000-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I appreciate that the decisions of the chairman are not always satisfactory to hon. members, especially when they want to advance a certain point of view; but in my understanding of this discussion the hon. member is out of order when he raises the question on this item of whether the government should have bought this property or another.


Howard Charles Green: I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Eglinton was not discussing whether the house should have been bought. He is trying to get at the total amount it is going to cost, and I submit that is quite in order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am quite prepared to give as much latitude on this item as may be permissible, and so far I believe I have done so. I am simply warning the hon. member for Eglinton, when he says the
Supply-Public Works
minister should not have gone into this project without having any idea of the cost, and makes statements of that kind, that we are now discussing an item of $35,000 for repairs, alterations and improvements. That is all I am doing at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before you make any ruling, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that what I am talking about now is this item of $35,000. The considerations I am putting forward are strictly relevant to the question whether this house should provide $35,000 when, even at this stage, the minister is not able to give us an estimate of the final cost. Apparently the government has just gone ahead without doing what any sensible member of this chamber would have done, that is, finding out what it was going to cost before commencing the project. It amazes me that at this stage, in March, 1950, nearly a year after the decision was made to take this property and renovate it for use as a residence for the Prime Minister, the government cannot give us an estimate of the total cost of the entire undertaking. I have tried as best I could to get the figures and put them together. When we do add up the figures the minister has given us, he will not commit himself in any degree to the total we arrive at.
I am in complete accord with the idea that a suitable home should be provided for the Prime Minister of this country; let there be no mistake about that. At the same time, as a matter of common sense and ordinary sensible business practice I believe the government should know the cost of a project before it undertakes it. Obviously that was not done in this case, and I think it is a ridiculous way of doing business.
I am going to ask this further question-


Alphonse Fournier: Before you use that word "ridiculous"-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the minister to give us-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Eglinton has the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am trying to facilitate the minister's reply by saying there is one other question I wish to ask.


Alphonse Fournier: You will not facilitate anything by calling this ridiculous.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I certainly will call any practice ridiculous under which a government blithely goes ahead with a project of this size without having any idea in advance of what the cost is going to be. If I understood the minister's statement correctly, that is precisely the situation that confronts the government and the rest of us at this moment.

Supply-Public Works
The other question I want to ask the minister, if he will be good enough to try to shed some light on it, is this. Are the figures which have been given to us the cost of the renovation of the property, or do the figures he has given include the cost of suitably furnishing the residence?


Alphonse Fournier: The best answer I can give is in a report I have here. Believe it or not, I took this as good advice from my officials:
Due to the nature of the work involved, the age of the building and the impossibility of determining the structural condition of the building until the work was under way, it was not possible to arrive at an accurate estimate of the total cost. The department therefore considered that a contract on a basis of cost plus a fixed fee would be the most practicable. Negotiations were entered into with Alex I. Garvock Limited1, who offered to perform the work on a basis of cost plus a fixed fee of $10,000-
That amount I am sure of; we know that. -such fee to include the provision of all supervision of the workmen, the engaging of a superintendent satisfactory to the department, and the provision of workmen's tools and equipment required on the work which are ordinarily supplied by the general contractor.
I know what it is costing for this contractor; we will have to pay $10,000, and he undertakes to do this work. Being no expert myself, I find that even these people cannot give me a final or definite estimate; but I am told that it will amount to something in the neighbourhood of $135,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps it will help my hon. friend if I add that an additional $80,000 is provided in the main estimates for 1950-51, which were tabled some time ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not dealt with my final question, as to whether any provision is made here for the furnishings.


Alphonse Fournier: In which figure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In either figure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In other words the figures the minister has given simply represent the cost of the structure as renovated?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I come back to my other point. Were not the considerations set out in the report the minister has just read available to the government before they selected this particular property for the Prime Minister's residence? I should have thought that, faced with such a situation, that is to say, complete uncertainty as to the eventual cost of renovating this large property, the government would have asked themselves whether they could not do better with their
[Mr. Fleming.!
money by buying another property, or by building a new home on this site instead of renovating a house that I am told is many years old. Will the minister give us some further information on that point?


Alphonse Fournier: The government gave a great deal of thought to this project, and came to the conclusion that this was the best way to acquire and have a home for the Prime Minister of Canada.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The reason I brought this up in the first place was that I have heard it said by architects and others interested that it would have been better, and would have provided a better building at approximately the same or at least a known cost, if the house were torn down and a new house built. I wondered if the department had considered building a modern house instead of trying to renovate the old house on this site. As everyone knows, this is an admirable site for a home for the Prime Minister.


Alphonse Fournier: It was discussed for I do not know how long. Every angle was gone into, but we came to the conclusion that having that site and the shell of this building we owned, it would be a proper way to proceed to provide this residence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
597. Prince Albert public building-addition and alterations-further amount required, $165,000.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Could we have the particulars concerning this expenditure?


Alphonse Fournier: A contract was given last year for the alteration and enlargement of this building in Prince Albert. We estimated that during the year we would spend a total of $220,000. The contractor has proceeded more rapidly than we estimated, and we owe him a progress payment on the contract in this amount of $160,000.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What is the building?


Alphonse Fournier: It is the post office and federal building in Prince Albert.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
600. Departmental administration-further amount required, $2,500.
John Horne Blackmore: I notice that this item is called "resources and development". I should like to say a word or two about the development of resources. I think everyone recognizes now that in the province of Alberta we have probably the finest resources of any province in Canada. Those resources have been there for hundreds of years; they have been there ever since people went to Alberta. We have

not been able to develop them until recently. Now, there are several reasons why that is so, and one of the largest considerations entering into the development of our resources today is the cost of doing business.
In this connection I desire to register an emphatic protest against the freight rate structure in Canada, particularly as it applies to western Canada. The freight rate structure is particularly important, because of the prevalence of the non-discrimination-in-trade philosophy in government thinking, which is leading the government to think that every industry ought to stand on its own feet. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance was correctly reported, or whether I remember exactly what I read, but it seems to me he used one of those breezy, dramatic expressions of his not long ago, that our industry in Canada has got to brace itself for competition abroad. Whether he said that or whether he meant it, I do not know but I fancy he meant it. The point is that, not very long after he made that remark, his government was party to permitting a thing to happen in Canada that increased the difficulty of every industry in Canada in bracing itself against competition from abroad. Now if you put enough difficulties or enough burdens on a man's back, he cannot brace himself against anything. He falls of his own weight.
In this connection, the freight rate structure is exceedingly important in this country. It increases production costs at the very time when we should keep production costs down. Then there is an excessively high cost of living today. It is a burden that is pushing the people of Canada right to the ground. I believe from coast to coast the Canadian people are literally groaning in misery. Not very long ago there was an increase in the price of coal in Ottawa, and the people just groaned. What was partly responsible for that increase? Things like the increase in freight rates-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but may I point out-


John Horne Blackmore: If the chairman would speak a little louder, I could hear him.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I said I was sorry to interrupt the hon. member, and I am sorry if I did not speak loudly enough for him to hear me. The item I have before me is item 600, "resources and development, departmental administration, further amount required, $2,500." I fail to see how the hon. member can discuss freight rates under this item, but perhaps that is not what he was talking about. Perhaps I did not hear him too well up here.
Supply-Resources and Development


John Horne Blackmore: I thought I made it quite clear to the chairman when I began, that I was laying emphasis on the second part of the title, which is development of resources.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wonder if I could appeal to my hon. friend? This item actually covers an additional amount for printing and stationery of $1,000, and an additional item of $1,500 for travelling expenses. Tomorrow is private members' day and Thursday, for reasons with which the hon. member is familiar, I am unable to be in the house. As I indicated earlier, it is urgent that these estimates should, if possible, be passed tonight. I would appeal to him, if it were possible, to defer his remarks on the general subject of resources and development until a little later in the week, or perhaps some time next week.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe every member in the house, and the minister himself, will agree that the development of the resources of Canada is going to depend a great deal on the sort of freight rates that prevail in Canada. I fancy, therefore, I am quite in order in that respect. I realize the difficulties under which the minister is labouring, and I deeply sympathize with him; every member in the house does. We sympathize with him, not only because of the difficulties he is in with respect to having these estimates passed, but because of certain other difficulties. At the same time, I feel the discussion of freight rates has been deferred too long. I think it is time that the members who represent the provinces that are being victimized spoke out, every one of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to see that one hon. member is catching the spirit. It is not my desire, Mr. Chairman, to hold up the house unduly. I believe I have nearly said enough to express my point of view, but I should like to add a few words in a general way before I sit down.
I should like to excuse myself on another score. This amount of money we are discussing falls under item 600, which is departmental administration. From time immemorial it has been customary in British houses of commons for the widest latitude to be allowed in discussing the item of departmental administration. I do not have to have much latitude to get a freight rate discussion out of the development of our natural resources.
Before the chairman felt compelled to interrupt in that genial way of his which we all admire so much, I was going to point out that Canada needs a tremendous amount of population today. We are never going to get population into this country, and have it
988	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce remain here, unless we make it possible for the people in Canada to live. What we have been doing up to the present moment, and what we have been doing ever since I can remember-that is about 40 years in Canada -is having children; raising them and educating them; and then sending them to the United States. I taught school for 21 years in one of the finest districts in Canada. Every time I look back over the student bodies I had the privilege of teaching for 21 years, and think of the number of them who are now doing magnificent work in the United States, it makes me furious. I am urging this from the standpoint of getting population into this country, and keeping it here to build the powerful nation we ought to have.
We must give a lot more attention to our freight rate structure than we do at the present time. Having said that, I am going to defer the real development of my speech until a later time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
601. Dominion forest service-forest research and investigations-further amount required, $250,000.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the minister taking over some of the work the Department of Agriculture is doing at the present time?


Mr. Winters:: No, Mr. Chairman; there is nothing envisaged under this item, covering work the Department of Agriculture does. This covers an arrangement with the province of New Brunswick under the Canada Forestry Act.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is just for one province?


Robert Henry Winters: Just for one province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
609. Subject to the approval of the governor in council, notwithstanding vote 907, to authorize payments out of the funds of the Fraser Valley diking board in accordance with the agreement of March, 1950, between the government of Canada, the government of the province of British Columbia and the said board; and to authorize such payments by the government of Canada to the said board out of vote 907 as are necessary to provide for Canada's share of the amount required by the the board to carry out the terms of the said agreement, $1.
George Alexander Cruickshank: May I have a breakdown of this item 609?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a little bit difficult to give a break-down. This item is the usual dollar item to give statutory authority to close out the operations of the Fraser valley diking board. Both the province of British Columbia and ourselves are anxious to complete these works and to complete the settlement by the dominion government. It may be that to make


the final adjustment and to determine the final figures will run us beyond March 31. The dollar item will give statutory authority to make this payment out of the consolidated revenue fund.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thank the minister. I just wanted to know how it was broken down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
610. To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for expenses incurred from August 1, 1948, to July 31, 1949, in the administration of delivery quotas and permit regulations, etc., $96,455.
Hazen Robert Argue: I had hoped that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might be in his seat now, but I see that he is not there at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: He was here a minute or so ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Finance is here, in any event, as is also the Minister of Agriculture. Under this Canadian wheat board item, I want to refer to the statement made earlier today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that ten cents a bushel will be paid out on oats this year and forty cents a bushel on barley. The minister went on to say that one of the reasons no payment would be considered on wheat was the attitude taken by the opposition. I hope he was not referring to my attitude. I at no time objected to the twenty cents having been paid last year. My objection was rather to the fact that when this amount was paid the farmers were not told the actual financial position of the wheat board at that time; and from statements of the Minister of Agriculture and others they assumed there would be a substantial payment this year.
My question is this. I should like the Minister of Agriculture, if he can, or the Minister of Finance-who I am sure know the financial position of the wheat board with respect to wheat just as they do with respect to oats and barley-to tell this committee and the farmers of western Canada approximately how much the payment on wheat is likely to be after the conclusion of this crop year. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out this afternoon, the farmers must undertake certain credit; and in doing that they would like to know the payment they will receive for oats and barley. I am not asking the minister to go out on a limb, but surely he can estimate reasonably closely the amount the payment will finally be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here. He had expected that we would reach his estimates earlier this evening and he had to leave. I believe he will be here tomorrow. I will

bring my hon. friend's question to his attention. I am not in a position to make an estimate; and for the reasons which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave this afternoon, I do riot believe any other minister is. All I can do is to bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of the minister, and he will try to deal with it tomorrow.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the Minister of Agriculture not care to make a guess?


Mr. Gardiner:: This is not a matter which is under my department at all. It is a matter which is under the Department of Trade and Commerce and always has been. The statement has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Howard Charles Green: Here is the Minister of Trade and Commerce coming into the chamber now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the hon. member's question, the substance of which has been conveyed to me by my colleague, may I say that I have no idea.


Hazen Robert Argue: I cannot accept that statement. In the past the Minister of Trade and Commerce has never been bashful about making forecasts. The wheat board is under his department, and I am sure he knows its financial position today and can make a reasonably good estimate of what the final payment will be. I am sure the farmers would like to know. For example, if a farmer over a five-year period had marketed 20,000 bushels of wheat-which is a quantity of wheat that many farmers would have marketed-and if the payment is twenty cents a bushel, the farmer will get another $4,000; if it is ten cents a bushel, he will get $2,000. All I am asking is that the minister make an estimate so that the farmers can plan their business this year in the light of the payment they can anticipate.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to follow up this question for just a moment or two, and I will not be long. The other day I had on the order paper a question which had to do with the marketing of the 1949 crop up to date, and I was told that it was not in the public interest to give the trading position along certain lines on which I was asking the question. If that question had been answered as I asked it, we would have been in a position to know fairly closely what the next payment should be, at least; not what it would be, but what it should be. But I was not able to get that information. I think the attitude of the minister at this time is most unfair. I want to ask another question that deals with the item of approximately $96,000 for administration of delivery quotas and
21. 1950	989
Supply-Trade and Commerce permit regulations. Has that to do with field inspectors? If it has, I should like to know how many of those there are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. That is the cost of administering the quota system at the elevators and certain services that the wheat board performs for the Department of Trade and Commerce. There is in the estimates each year a similar item covering expenditures incurred by the board in carrying out the instructions of the department.


James Arthur Ross: I want to ask the minister again if he would not even give me the information?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Arthur Ross: The other information that was refused?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Arthur Ross: It cannot be done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Mr. Quelch:: Whilst I appreciate the fact that the minister may not be in a position to state how much money there may be available to pay out in the five-year pool from the wheat board, on the other hand can the minister say whether or not any agreement has been reached with Britain with regard to a final payment on account of the "having regard" clause?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Victor Quelch: If there is no assurance on that point, can the minister say whether or not any decision has been arrived at by the cabinet as to whether or not any payment will be made in compensation for the amount of money lost by the farmers as the result of subsidizing the Canadian consumer and the British consumer during the five-year period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
612. To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the deficit incurred from the operations of the wheat board on the 1948 crop account, flax division, for the period August 1, 1948, to July 31, 1949, pursuant to order in council P.C. 3376 of July 28, 1948, $3,884,182.


James Arthur Ross: This item has to do with an amount of almost $4 million on flax account and I think the minister should explain why that is. That also raises another point I want to mention. I had on the order paper a question which was answered at page 833. It had to do with the federal grain elevator at Saskatoon. I have now on the order paper another question asking for much more detailed information; but on the information I received, it cost the government over $78,000 to operate that elevator last year.

Supply-Trade and Commerce On the average by month, there was only a shade under 12,000 bushels of all types of grain stored there. That is a gigantic cost to somebody. The point I want to make about this flax is this, and I raised this issue with the minister throughout the war years, when the government was spending a great deal of money on crown companies and so on, and in assisting other companies. Whole processing plants were built in eastern Canada where your flax had to be taken east and processed and much of the processed article was taken west again, especially in the matter of feeds for livestock. Since then the farmers themselves have set up an organization and developed a processing plant at Saskatoon. I have been credibly informed that that plant had to close down last summer because there was not sufficient flaxseed and such like materials available in the west, because that flax and processing cereals had been moved east at that time. Naturally the cost would be too much to transport it back west.
Surely, with the grain and with an elevator such as that in Saskatoon, there was a great lack of co-operation somewhere between federal government departments, and certainly a vast waste of money. The building in Saskatoon cost over $1,500,000 to construct to begin with, and they are spending around $78,000 a year for administration, and have been for the last five years. They refuse to spend money to develop an industry that should have been developed where practically all of the flax is grown. Some of this processed material had to be shipped back west. I hope the minister can give an explanation of this huge expenditure to take care of the flax for that year. I pointed out what happened to the elevator in Saskatoon, and the lack of material being stored there last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation of this item is that for the crop year 1948 the government guaranteed a price of $4 per bushel for flax marketed in that year. A very large crop of flax was grown, and while it looked like a safe price at the time it was set-it was a dollar below the guaranteed price of the previous year-suddenly instead of there being an active demand for flax there was no demand at all except for domestic sales, with a very little for export. The result is that the wheat board was not able to market in the year 1948 any more than a small part of their flax crop. Owing to a small crop last year the board is gradually disposing of the surplus. This amount is required to pay the carrying charges on the flax that was taken in, and to write the crop down to its current price of $3.80.
[Mr. Ross (Souris) .1
As for storing flax in Saskatoon, the purpose of the wheat board is to market grain, not to store it. Storing is only incidental to marketing. Saskatoon is not a marketing point for flax, and it was moved to the market. It was the duty of anyone who had a crushing plant in the west to make arrangements with the board to store flax in Saskatoon, or to move it anywhere else, and arrangements could easily have been made. That was done to the extent that the arrangements were made, but nevertheless the board cannot run the business of the crushers. It can only market the farmers' grain to the best advantage, which is the work delegated to the wheat board.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is it not true that at the time the crushing plant at Saskatoon was short of flax the wheat board was paying storage for that same flax in some of the large elevators in the east?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may be.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think the answer is not "may be" but "yes".


James Arthur Ross: I would think the same situation is true of wheat. I understand that that elevator has a storage capacity of considerably over 5 million bushels. I say to those people who are very much interested in the Hudson bay route that this would be the place to store wheat as well as flax. There will have to be much more explanation of the matter than that given by the minister. I understand that there were less than 12,000 bushels on the average stored during all of last year in a building owned by the government with a storage capacity of over 5 million bushels. I understand that the wheat board will have quite an item for storage at the head of the lakes. At the same time their own building is standing out there idle throughout the year. There should be some explanation of that situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, we are losing export sales on wheat today because we cannot get enough wheat in marketing position. My hon. friend knows enough about wheat to know that marketing positions are Vancouver, or the head of the lakes or an eastern shipping point. Saskatoon is not a marketing point. Any grain stored there would be out of position and would cause that much further loss of export sales.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic energy control board1-[DOT]
614. Chalk River project-capital and1 operating expenses-further amount required, $200,000.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this item is a vote for the Chalk River project. I am heartily in favour of it, but I would like to

take this opportunity of urging upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce that a special committee of the house be set up at this session to consider, the working of the atomic energy control board or the work of the research council. The minister will remember that a recommendation of last year's committee was to this effect:
Your committee has been in existence for only six weeks and in that time has been unable to complete its examination into the field1 of atomic energy development. Furthermore, this field is a new one, is widening rapidly, and may well be of tremendous importance to Canada. For these reasons your committee recommends that a special committee be reconstituted next session.
On the last day of the session I raised this question, and the minister's reply will be found at page 3108 of Hansard. He said:
I presume the next session will come early in the new year. I fully agree with my hon. friend that the work of the committee was splendid. I believe it had a good deal to do with raising the spirits of the staff at Chalk River. It occurs to me that a similar committee might be set up to look into all the work of the national research council, including atomic energy. I am not promising that, but such a proposal could be considered next year.
Atomic energy developments, of course, are going on all the time, and the work of the research council is progressing, too. Great strides are being made by that council. It is of the utmost importance that the house should be kept in touch with these developments. I am quite sure that other hon. members who served on the atomic energy committee last year will agree with me when I say that the co-operation in that committee was excellent. Everyone who belonged to it was very proud to be a member, and felt that there was a great deal more work to be done. It would be a pity if that work were not to be continued during the present session. I urge upon the minister that he agree to the setting up of a committee at this session to consider either the work of the atomic energy control board, or, in line with his own suggestion, to deal with the work of the national research council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter will be given consideration.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This is an item of $200,000. Most of the work is not public. What is the total cost of the Chalk River plant? Does it sell radioactive isotopes to industry? If so, what is the revenue from those sales?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, this item simply covers certain supplies. I do not know what the total cost is. I suppose it is getting up toward $27 million or $28 million.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is the total capital cost.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The revenue is small, but it is beginning to build up. I think in the
21. 1950
Supply-Trade and Commerce year 1950-51 there will be substantial revenue, perhaps running to $250,000 or $300,000.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister make a definite statement as to whether there will be a committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


George Alexander Drew: So we are just left to guess as to whether there may or may not be a committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: This is a perfect example of the way the government keeps demanding that there be some co-operation, but offers none.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


James Sinclair: Carried.


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


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, well.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this particular item. As a rule the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is very much to the point in his remarks. In this particular instance I do not think he is. I think that instead of asking for the setting up of a committee on atomic energy, specifically, the main attempt of this committee should be to set up a committee on defence matters, generally, because I feel that this matter of atomic energy is one that is tied in directly with matters of defence.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I understand the hon. member wishes to speak to item 614?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That refers to the Chalk River project, capital and operating expenses, $200,000.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, and that is exactly the item I am talking about. So far as I am concerned, the amount required in this vote, for the purposes for which it is intended, receives my hearty approval. I am completely in accord with it. At the same time I do not think these two matters can be separated to any great extent.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was permitted to make a suggestion that a committee should be set up to supervise, scrutinize and report to the house concerning matters which may come within the scope of this vote. It is concerning the remarks of the hon. member that I wish to speak. I say that a committee of that kind at this time is not one which would meet with my approval. In my view the time has come when we should get down to considering a main committee on defence.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. When the chairman rises it is one of the rules that hon. members must resume their seats. I see now that the hon. member has done so, and I thank him for it. I believe I heard him say that he is in complete accord with item 614. Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Then I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the item under discussion, and not speak about national defence.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to be bothersome, or to delay the Minister of National Defence in having this item passed. I will repeat what I said earlier, that I agree with the principle behind this item. However, if we wish to discuss it in detail, in all its ramifications, it will take a long time. I have no intention of doing that either-and I am not going to talk this out, until eleven o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the hon. member would allow an interruption. As I indicated earlier, there is some importance in passing a supply bill, including two of these items, today, if possible. It is impossible for me to be here until Friday. Tomorrow is private members' day. If I could have unanimous consent to a motion to sit a few minutes after eleven o'clock, I would hope that we might be able to conclude by that time. However,
I appreciate the fact that to do so I would require unanimous consent. I would appreciate it personally if such consent could be given, because hon. members will understand that I have heavy commitments between now and next Tuesday when the budget is to be brought in. It would be a great accommodation if this procedure could be followed.


Clarence Gillis: I can complete my remarks.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Then if I might put the motion now to sit after eleven o'clock-


Clarence Gillis: All I want to do is to ask a question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would need a motion, anyway.


Clarence Gillis: If you want to; I will do anything to accommodate you.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would make the motion to sit after eleven o'clock, if I could have unanimous consent-in the hope that it would take only a few minutes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is there unanimous consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only for a limited time. So often we grant a few minutes, and we are here for an hour.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should hope we might do it by 11.15. We have a few more items to pass, all of the usual year-end variety, to pay bills. Then we have to put through two bills founded on the interim supply. I should hope to conclude that.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite prepared to sit as long as required, and I wish to have that understood. But I also wish it definitely understood that these are not just a few items to be dealt with. There are two very important items here which have not been discussed previously. One of these amounts to $42 million and the other to $4,317,000. I certainly intend to direct a number of remarks to the latter item, because it is the first time it has been before the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should hope we might sit a sufficient length of time to dispose of these, and would ask if the house would be prepared to do that. Of course, I am not in a position to insist. However, it would greatly facilitate the job I have to do if that consent were given. We have had close to five hours of discussion now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be just as easy, with unanimous consent, to take it tomorrow.


Donald MacInnis: I have no objection to sitting fifteen or twenty minutes, but I am not going to sit here, if there is going to be a discussion, until twelve o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Then may I suggest this: tomorrow is private members' day, on resolutions, I understand. If I could have unanimous consent to complete this job at three o'clock, perhaps it would suit the house better. I would appreciate it very much if that could be done.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow being
private members' day, after the Minister of Finance has concluded the business he announced a moment ago we will take up resolutions standing in members' names, following the order under standing order No. 15.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration, service-
565.	Publicity and extension division-further amount required, $12,000.

Experimental farms service-
566.	Branch farms and stations and illustration stations-further amount required, $38,000.
Production service-
Health of Animals-
567.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act-further amount required, $63,000.
568.	Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $1,225,000.
Marketing service-
569.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $9,448.
Special-
570.	Agricultural Products Act-to provide for losses incurred in respect of the purchase, sale and export of agricultural products under the Agricultural Products Act, including authority for the Minister of Finance, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, from time to time, to pay amounts in the aggregate not exceeding $40,000,000 out of any unappropriated money in the consolidated revenue fund as recoverable advances-further amount required. $350,000.

[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs branch-
Welfare-
571.	Welfare of Indians-further amount required

[Stage Direction]
B-General-
The Canadian government's assessment for membership in the following international or commonwealth organizations-
572.	World health organization-further amount required, $48,695.
573.	Inter-allied reparations agency, $7,830. Demobilization and reconversion-
574.	To provide for the Canadian government's contribution to the international refugee organization-further amount required, $402,000.
[Stage Direction]
Superannuation and retirement benefits-
575.	Government's contribution to the superannuation fund-further amount required, $63,000.
Public debt charges-
Servicing of public debt-
576.	Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrars fees, etc.-further amount required, $20,000.
General-
577.	To provide for the government's contribution as an employer, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office-further amount required, $100,000.
578.	To provide for the expenses of the dominion-provincial conference held in January, 1950, $6,000.
Insurance-
579.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $4,000.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-	[DOT]
580.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $47,000.
Supply
Annuities Act-
581.	Notwithstanding the Government Annuities Act, to authorize the Minister of Labour, in consequence of the transfer of employees from David Spencer Limited and David Spencer (Duncan) Limited (hereinafter called the original employers) to T. Eaton Company British Columbia Limited (hereafter called the new employer) to enter into a contract or contracts with the original employers and the new employer, to provide that the new employer shall effective October 15, 1949, become a party to group annuity contracts Nos. G. 421 and G. 463 in the place of the original employers with respect to employees to whom those contracts applied and who were transferred to the new employer and for the application of the contracts in respect of service with the original employers and the new employer and for such other terms as the minister deems necessary for the maintenance and continuity of pension rights of the employees under those contracts, and to provide for payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with the contract or contracts so entered into out of the government annuities account, $1.
Demobilization and reconversion-
582.	To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need; including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada under former authorized labour movements and administrative expenses connected therewith-further amount required, $136,500.
B-Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
583.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund-further amount required, $2,500,000.
584.	To authorize and provide for payment of unemployment assistance to residents of Newfoundland within the terms set forth under vote 681 in the supplementary estimates (Newfoundland) 194950, as authorized by the Appropriation Act No. 7, 1949-further amount required, $700,000.
585.	To reimburse the unemployment insurance fund under section 87F (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, as amended by statute of 1950, $1,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
586.	General administration-further amount required, $2,500.
587.	To provide for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the first and second sessions of 1949 to members of the Senate for days lost through absence caused by public business, by illness, or on account of death. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct-further amount required, $21,425.
House of Commons-
588.	To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or order of the house, or on account of death during the second session of 1949-notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 147 of the revised statutes, 1927, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendment thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury* board may direct-further amount required, $3,750.
589.	Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms-further amount required, $8,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
[Stage Direction]
General services-
590.	Miscellaneous maintenance and adjustments (war of 1914-18)-further amount required, $15,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
Civil pensions-
591.	Mrs. Alice Smuck-further amount required, $227.
Demobilization and reconversion-
592.	To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services, and to authorize notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, total additional commitments for this purpose for the current year of $7,000,000 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1949-50 will not exceed a further amount of $4,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
593.	General administration-further amount required, $6,500.
594.	To provide for expenses of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences-further amount required, $26,041.
[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-*
Quebec-
595.	Three Rivers public building-addition-further amount required, $95,000.
Ontario-
596.	Ottawa-Prime Minister's residence-repairs, alterations and improvements. $35,000.
Saskatchewan-
597.	Prince Albert public building-addition and alterations-further amount required, $165,000.
Engineering branch-construction, repairs and improvements-harbours and rivers-
Quebec-
598.	Blue Sea lake-wharf replacement-to complete payments, $2,700.
Point Basse, M.I.-breakwater-wharf replacement -further amount required, $20,000.
Ontario-
599.	Kingston-to purchase wharf property, $20,500.
[Stage Direction]
600.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $2,500.
Mines, forests and scientific services branch- Dominion forest service-
601.	Forest research and investigations-further amount required, $250,000.
Lands and development services branch-
Northwest Territories and Yukon services-Arctic division^-
602. Administration-further	amount required, $4,500.
Yukon division-
603.	To provide for a contribution to the Sisters of Sainte Anne toward provision of hospital facilities at Dawson, Yukon territory, $29,000.
National parks services-
604.	To authorize, notwithstanding the provisions of the act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec, payment of $2,060.07, being a donation received by the national battlefields commission from the soldiers' war memorial committee of Quebec, to a committee of ex-commanding officers of the Royal 22nd Regiment towards the cost of publishing a history of the said regiment, $1.
[Stage Direction]
605.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $4,000.
606.	Trade marks branch-further amount required, $800.
Patent and copyright office-
607.	Patent record division-further amount required, $15,000.
608.	Contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, and office of the international union for the protection of literary and artistic works-further amount required, $500.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-Special-
609.	Subject to the approval of the governor in council, notwithstanding vote 907, to authorize payments out of the funds of the Fraser valley diking board in accordance with the agreement of March, 1950, between the government of Canada, the government of the province of British Columbia and the said board; and to authorize such payments by the government of Canada to the said board out of vote 907 as are necessary to provide for Canada's share of the amount required by the board to carry out the terms of the said agreement, $1.
610.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for expenses incurred from August 1, 1948, to July 31 1949, in the administration of delivery quotas and permit regulations, etc., $96,455.
611.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the balance of the deficit incurred from the operations of the wheat board on the 1947 crop account, flax division, for the period August 1, 1948, to July 31, 1949, pursuant to orders in council P.C. 3038 of July 31, 1947, and P.C. 829 of February 26, 1948, $189,831.
612.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the deficit incurred from the operation of the wheat board on the 1948 crop account, flax division, for the period August 1, 1948, to July 31, 1949, pursuant to order in council P.C. 3376 of July 28, 1948, $3,884,182.
613.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the deficit incurred from the operations of the wheat board on the 1948 crop rapeseed account, for the period ended July 31, 1949, pursuant to the regulations passed under the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1948-49, vote 887 and the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, as amended, and approved by order in council P.C. 3717 of August 25, 1948, $399,608.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 22. 1950