1952-03-28

Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the legislation respecting war veterans allowances; for increasing allowances and permissible income; for assisting veterans who may be employable to some degree; and also to provide for the salaries of members of the war veterans allowance board.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951, to provide that the act shall expire on the last day of the first session of parliament in nineteen hundred and fifty-three in lieu of the last day of the first session of parliament in nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act so as to provide that in certain cases the estate of the insured may receive the full amount payable under the policy contract.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: In accordance with a request made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) I should like to table a copy of the agreement between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada with respect to forest inventory and reforestation.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister seen the full text, as published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. of March 27, of the statement given in the Nova Scotia legislature by the minister of trade and industry concerning the problem of aid for the Nova Scotia fishermen? If so, is he prepared to make a further statement in the matter?
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minisier of
Fisheries): I have had the pleasure of seeing and reading the full text of the statement by the minister in the Nova Scotia legislature. There are many things about it with which I do not agree, but I shall make a full statement at a later date.
I will say now, however, that I cannot recall any case of relief such as this which has not been initiated by a provincial government.



PRESS REPORT AS TO JAPANESE FISHING FLEET OFF B.C. COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question connected with the Japanese fishing treaty. Is there any truth in the report by Mr. Elmore Philpott of the Vancouver Sun that Japanese fishing vessels are operating

Inquiries of the Ministry a hundred miles off the British Columbia coast and endangering the livelihood of British Columbia fishermen?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: I have seen that article in the Vancouver Sun. This morning I took the trouble to inquire through our office in British Columbia, which, in turn, got in touch with the weather ships off the coast, with B.C. packers and with our own patrol boats, and I am now assured there are no Japanese fishermen within one hundred miles of our shore line in the Pacific.
While I am on my feet may I repeat a statement I have made frequently, not only in this house but in other places, that Japanese nationals have never fished along the British Columbia coast. At one time they fished in Bristol bay for a matter of two days. Conditions were made rather unpleasant for them, with the result that they left Bristol bay, came down the coast, got supplies in Seattle and went back to Japan. But they did not fish. The statement attributed to Mr. Philpott is therefore untrue. There are no such fishermen on the coast today, and there have not been, up to date.



NEWFOUNDLAND-REPORTED PRESENCE OF FOREIGN DRAGGERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: One
day last week the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacNaught) promised a report on dragger and trawler operations in the coastal waters of Newfoundland. Has he that report?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The departmental boat Eastern Explorer, with a mounted police officer on board, is patrolling that area. Our largest boat, the Cygnus, has also been on the ground, as well as a Royal Canadian Mounted Police boat. We have had no report from any of these boats that there is fishing within the three mile limit. I might say that in the past the French boats that have come over to fish on the Grand Banks have brought with them their own patrol vessels which have kept them outside the three mile limit. We are informed by the French embassy here that their boat will be in that area by the end of this week, and is probably there at the present moment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chesier S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of

the Minister of Transport. Is it the minister's desire to replace all Canadian National rail passenger services in Prince Edward Island with bus services, except trains numbers 39 and 40 between Charlottetown and Borden, as announced by W. E. Robinson, vice-president and general manager of the Atlantic region of Canadian National Railways?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I should think that a question of
that kind would demand some consideration. In any event the Minister of Transport would have no jurisdiction to replace passenger trains by automotive carriers. I presume what my hon. friend has in mind is the decision handed down by some board on Prince Edward Island having to do with the operation of motor carriers of Canadian National Railways. I shall inquire into the matter and give my hon. friend an answer later.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN DOMESTIC PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the request made yesterday by the three farmers unions that the domestic price of wheat be increased?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, is that a question of urgency? If you rule that it is, I shall be glad to deal with it.


Mr. Speaker:: I would not think that it is a question of urgency. I understand that a request was made yesterday by a delegation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a matter which has been under discussion for at least two years, and I dare say it can stand a little more discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: No increase.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in position to announce' the personnel of the Canadian delegation which is to carry on negotiations for a new international wheat agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that an
announcement is being made in the press today. The delegation will be made up of Mr. Sharp and Dr. Wilson, of the Department of Trade and Commerce; three representatives of the wheat board, two of whom are now in

London, Mr. Lawrie and Mr. Biddulph; and Mr. McNamara of Winnipeg. The advisers to the delegation will be the presidents of the three wheat pools, the president of the United Grain Growers, and a man who I believe is not an office holder in the farmers union but has been nominated by them.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to revert to first reading of a Senate bill, which is on the order paper as Bill No. 61, in order that it may be given first reading now?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house revert to first reading of Senate bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Henry: I move the first reading of Bill No. 61 (from the Senate), respecting the British Northwestern Fire Insurance Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

On the order for committee of supply:


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I had a word with the leaders of the various parties and it was agreed unanimously that we should proceed in committee of supply and committee of ways and means to deal with the usual interim supply for the first two months of the coming fiscal year and then take up the final supplementary estimates.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that if you leave the chair it will be for the purpose not merely of dealing with interim supply but also of going into committee on the supplementary estimates? I wished to have a few words to say on the supplementary estimates and if this is the appropriate moment, I can say them now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course my hon. friend can make his remarks at any time, but he will realize that we will be going into and out of committee of supply several times before we get interim supply through, and before we get the items of the supplementary estimates voted and the appropriate supply bills based upon them put through. So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to his making his remarks at any time he sees fit.
Supply


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think perhaps I had better do it now, and then we may have the pain behind us. I want to say a word which I have no doubt has been said before, but which I hope will never have to be said again. I want to refer to the practice which seems to be growing of bringing down these supplementary estimates just far enough in advance of the end of the year to put the proper amount of pressure on the opposition to be good boys and carry them through. I am not arguing about bringing them down a day earlier; I am arguing about bringing them down a week or two earlier so that this important matter can be dealt with as it should be. I am going to suggest very earnestly that what has become almost a routine procedure could be abandoned in future with great profit to all of us.
Just a word about the size of the supplementary estimates. Two hundred and forty-six million dollars is a lot of money. One can cast his mind back not so many years ago when that would represent a large percentage of the total expenditures for the year. But when one examines this figure it is not so much its size that strikes one as the fact that there are one or two items included in it which almost seem to suggest that, for reasons which I do not understand, the minister wishes to inflate the figure as high as he can. It may be that the minister has a prudent eye on the political situation and is looking ahead, but there are two items here, one of $102 million and the other of $37 million-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Fifty-seven million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For Polymer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: 1 beg your pardon; I thought you were referring to old age pensions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The $57 million has to do with old age pensions, and that amount is in a different category. This item of $102 million would appear almost like an act of repentance and reparation. For a long time we appear to have neglected the superannuation fund of the civil service, but we are now trying to make up for lost ground and this year we have an item totalling $102 million. I think that compares with the $75 million a year ago. No one can question the propriety of that. Of course we have to have a sound fund. All I am pointing out is that there are people who are suggesting that this $102 million does not actually have to come in this year. They are suggesting that it and one or two other items are perhaps put in with a view to cutting down the minister's surplus, of which he spoke so proudly in the middle of February, but with a pride which perhaps is subject to qualification later on.

Supply
On that I have no view at all. I am just raising the point as it has been raised, and it is conceivable that this $102 million may-have come in wholly because the minister thought it was a matter of prudent bookkeeping to show what I suppose is a liability. We shall learn more about that later. But there is also the possibility that the minister thought it would be desirable to bring this in -he might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb-at this moment and get it behind him and be that much better off next year when possibly there may be reasons for trying to gentle the electorate.
The other item I wish to refer to is one dealing with Polymer. There I am even more surprised, because that item of $37 million is shown as part of this $246 million. If I understand the transaction correctly, it is what may euphemistically be called a bookkeeping transaction and does not actually represent an outlay of $37 million. I assume that when the budget comes out perhaps this-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not a budgetary item at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is in here as part of the $246 million, if my addition is correct, and I tried to do my best to add it up. I think the minister will find that it is part of the $246 million, although the minister now says that it is not a budgetary item. I do point out it is included in the $246 million, and as such has gone out to the public as part of the supplementary estimates which we are now asked to vote.
I want to mention one further thing in passing. We have heard of the $722 million surplus. I do not know what we are going to be told is the final state of that, whether the final stage will be found to be larger than the first. It has been suggested it might be cut down a good deal. When the minister does explain it, if in fact it is reduced, I hope he will also explain what he said in February in his broadcast. As I read it in my simple way, it seemed to me he had explained that the $722 million had been very fortunate for the taxpayers of Canada, because, he said, it had made it possible for the federal government to do its national duty without invading the already tight capital market. In other words, if I understand the minister correctly, he indicated to us then that the moneys had been spent.
I should like to make one comment on the surplus. There are few of us who can arrange our own income to the extent the minister can. Perhaps that is a very comfortable position for the Minister of Finance, but it has its dangers too. What I mean is this, Mr. Speaker. After some reasonable representations to the contrary, last April the

minister did in fact add substantially to our taxes. I refer particularly to the sales and excise taxes. He did thereby add substantially to prices. In fact, if you take the whole effect of the year we had an increase in gross national product of $3,200 million, of which about $2 billion was represented by a rise in prices. To most of us that is very painful, except to those who are speculating and who are buying and selling on a rising market. It is not painful to the minister who gets a very large increase in his revenue. The Minister of Finance has been frank to point out to us that his increased revenues were, in fact, substantially due to higher prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member now discussing the problem of financing generally? I am afraid this will lead to a budgetary debate. I do not know what the arrangement was between the leaders of the parties as to my leaving the chair today without question put. Of course there is nothing before the chair at the present time.
I merely draw that to the attention of the hon. member, because I do not think he desires that we should have a general debate on financial matters at this time.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Finance spoke to me, as I have no doubt he spoke to the leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties, I think I should say that there was no mention of the possibility of not having any discussion before Your Honour left the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is quite right, Mr. Speaker. Of course it is not necessary that a motion be put for Your Honour to leave the chair today. My understanding was that, by unanimous consent, we would proceed in committee of supply and ways and means to deal with the two items of interim supply and the supplementary estimates. I assumed that the discussion could range over any field that could properly be brought up under that head. I did indicate to the leaders the reasons why both supply bills had to be passed by both houses and receive royal assent before the end of the fiscal year. Aside from that, the hon. member is quite right, and the field is wide open for discussion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I could help by saying that I am just finishing my general remarks. I now wish to make one or two suggestions which I hope will aid the consideration of the items.
If I may just finish the comment I was making, it is this. Contrary to the rest of us, the minister gets tremendous boost from rising prices. I think we should remind ourselves, therefore, that it is not possible for the Minister of Finance, who after all is

naturally anxious to have a surplus, to have that detestation for inflation that the rest of us ordinary mortals have.
I want to make one or two brief suggestions about dealing with these estimates. I said that we object to their being brought down too late. I am afraid that we must face the fact that we have no feeling of sympathy with the government in trying to help them beyond a certain point. But on the other hand we have a great feeling of sympathy for anyone who is dependent upon getting these estimates through in order to get wages or salaries. We have, therefore, studied these estimates and have suggestions to make. We would distinguish between those which we think are of immediate urgency and those we think are not so urgent. While we are not foreclosing our rights to ask questions and discuss any of the items involved, in the case of those we think are urgent, for the reasons I have given, we are anxious to facilitate the passage of those items in so far as we can. We consider as urgent those items for producer assistance, wages or salaries or pensions of any kind.
If the minister will assure us that any item which I shall suggest is not urgent, in fact is for payments such as I have indicated, salaries or wages, we shall take his word for it and regard it as an urgent item. Actually I believe the minister will see that we have not gone out of our way to try to pick out items as not urgent. Most of them are indicated as urgent. I would just take a moment to indicate some of those that we think are urgent, and then indicate one or two examples of those which we think are not urgent. After that I suggest that we go through the items and when we come to one which we suggest to the minister is not urgent, we will ask him if he will allow it to go to the foot of the list and then he could make up his mind whether or not he agrees.
On page 1 of the supplementary estimates, item No. 563, which has to do with the foot-and-mouth disease, is urgent. We regard the subsidies to cold storage warehouses as urgent, and also the agricultural lime assistance. We have not done this in an arbitrary fashion. On the other hand, I could give one or two illustrations of cases which we think are not urgent. We cannot believe it is a matter of either twenty-four or forty-eight hour urgency that item 580 should be dealt with. It is concerned with commission for payment of interest. The payment of interest might be very urgent, but not this item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is to pay printing bills.
Interim Supply


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then, on page 5 of the supplementary estimates there are items dealing with certain indemnities for the Senate and the House of Commons. I am sure that all members will agree there is nothing urgent about that. I have taken it up with the authorities, and find that it does not affeot any member of the staff but only the members of the Senate and House of Commons. I feel sure that they would gladly go to the foot of the list.
I have tried to indicate that we are really co-operative, though we sometimes have to say somewhat critical things about the government; we always do it more in sorrow than in anger. We do want to co-operate, but with the reservation that we are not going to be panicked. As I say, co-operation does not involve acting in a mechanical manner. I hope the minister will agree with us when we come to those items we have marked as not urgent that we have tried to take a reasonable view regarding them.
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $526,696,879.17, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto, a sum not exceeding $2,395,833.33, being five-twelfths of the amount of item 37, a sum not exceeding $526,420, being one-third of the amount of items 25, 448, a sum not exceeding $340,890.17, being one-sixth of the amount of items 209, 212, 213, and a sum not exceeding $257,602.41, being one-twelfth of items 62, 450, 452 of the said estimates be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953.
He said: Mr. Chairman, the bill to be founded on this resolution is in the usual form. It will provide for one-sixth of all the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1952-53; an additional five-twelfths of one special item in respect of which charges will come for payment within, the first few months of the year, that is freight assistance on feed grain; an additional one-third of two special items for services coming for payment within the first few months of the year, those items being the compensation for animals slaughtered and items in connection with the international trade fair; an additional one-sixth of three special items which are to cover sessional expenses of the Senate and the House of Commons on which the heaviest payments fall due in the early months of the fiscal year; an additional one-twelfth of three special items which are for services of a

Interim Supply
seasonal nature covering citizenship and immigration, trade and commerce, electricity and gas inspection service and weights and measures division.
The general proportion of one-sixth, of course, as is usual is intended to provide for all necessary ordinary requirements of the public service to the end of May. The additional proportions requested for certain special items which I have indicated are necessary due to the seasonal and sessional services affected, and in no instance is the total amount of any item being released.
The form of the bill will be the same as the bill introduced at this time last year and for the previous year, except for the dropping of a section which authorized the raising of loans for the purpose of redeeming prior loans or obligations. That activity, commencing April 1, 1952, will be carried on under the authority of the new Financial Administration Act.
The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time during the remainder of the session. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as the result of the passing of this measure.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask one question of the minister. There is usually an undertaking given in connection with this matter. At what stage will that be given?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have just given it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry; I did not hear it. I thought I was listening, but apparently I was not. Will the minister comment on this point? The minister will perhaps remember that three years ago, when we were on the eve of an election, I raised with him the question of the undertaking which, as I recall it, was that these moneys are voted on the full understanding that parliament will have a chance to review the details. Is that the undertaking to which the minister refers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has always been my understanding. This undertaking is in the form in which it has been given for some thirty years, I understand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister will remember that there was a difference of opinion between us three years ago as to whether that meant that the undertaking was given to parliament, or to these members sitting in this house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid that is beyond the power of this Minister of Finance or any other minister to say. .


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Wait a minute; what 1 am referring to is this. There was a misunderstanding; I dislike misunderstandings, and I think it is time to clear it up. After all, the minister can construe the undertaking as well as any man in this house. I apologize for not having heard the words that he used.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will read them again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister would not mind doing so, he might perhaps read them again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: These are the words I have used every year since I have been minister, and they are the ones which my predecessor also used.
The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time during the remainder of the session. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as the result of the passing of this measure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister not think it is perfectly clear that that is an undertaking to give to the men who sit in this house, who are the people who take this action-


Mr. Knowles:: Don't forget the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough).


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the hon. member for his assistance. I should have said, to the lady and the men who sit in this house. I think this is a matter of some importance, Mr. Chairman, because it became of importance three years ago. I should like to have the minister say whether, as I understand it, that wording means that that undertaking is given to those who now agree to take this action.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend wants my personal interpretation of what those words mean, I shall be happy to give it to him. It is an undertaking to the members of parliament, as such, who may be called upon to consider the estimates which I tabled a week or two ago, that the opportunity to discuss every one of the items in those estimates will be accorded to the members of parliament who are here, available and competent to discuss them. That is my personal interpretation. It may be right or wrong. In any event it is free. There is no charge for it.


Mr. Wright:: It is worth the price.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is not a lawyer for nothing. What I mean is that he has not wasted his time; but the minister has still not answered my question. He has worded his interpretation in such a way that it is open, I submit, to the construction that he is merely giving an undertaking that either the members who sit here now, or those who might succeed them after a general election, will have the opportunity to review these estimates. I was greatly surprised when that interpretation was given three years ago; and I suggest that if that undertaking means anything, it cannot mean that it is being given to a lot of people who are not here. After all, we are being asked to act. We are being asked to give this blank cheque which we give; but it has been on that undertaking. I confess until three years ago I had no doubt what that undertaking meant, but it was construed then in a way that I had not expected. I would greatly value the minister's opinion, which really he has not given. What I want to know plainly is this. Does the minister regard that undertaking as given to those of us who now vote in our individual capacity, or does he regard it as given to the abstraction of parliament?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is an undertaking given to the House of Commons, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the minister also gives the undertaking that in no case do these various fractions that he has given add up to twelve-twelfths.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said so a moment ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1953, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $526,696,879.17, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953;
Interim Supply
2.	The sum of $2,395,833.33, being five-twelfths of the amount of item 37 of the said estimates;
3.	The sum of $526,420, being one-third of the amount of items 25, 448 of the said estimates;
4.	The sum of $340,890.17, being one-sixth of the amount of items 209, 212, 213 of the said estimates; and
5.	The sum of $257,602.41, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 62 , 450 , 452 of the said estimates, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should just like to make one comment. Just for the purpose of the record, I think it is desirable to point out that the reason this vote is given without further discussion is in view of the undertaking, even though in a somewhat qualified manner, given by the Minister of Finance that we shall have full opportunity to investigate and to discuss the total number of items when they come before us, and in view of the fact that the amount now voted is merely a small fraction of the total amount required by the government. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I want to make the record clear that this is not a case of any easy granting of money. Full opportunity will be given later to review the estimates, and the amount now given is a small fraction of the total.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1953.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to D inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now, by leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952.


[Stage Direction]
Production service-
Health of animals-
563. Compensation for animals slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; and additional compensation in conformity with the terms of the act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease-further amount required, $665,000.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, may I say just a word in reply to one or two points made by the hon. member for Greenwood.
The method which is being followed as to the placing of these supplementary estimates before the house is the practice that has been followed for a great many years, under a great many administrations, both Liberal and Conservative. These are the estimates, which are substantial, to authorize the payment of bills. In only a few cases is there ever any question of any new policy being involved, and that is the case with these present estimates. They are, however, all items which relate to the fiscal year which is now ending. I shall be only too happy to co-operate with my hon. friends opposite in an orderly discussion of the estimates, and to give, or to make available, any information which may be necessary. But I must point out that the degree of urgency must rest with myself as the minister responsible for the placing of these estimates before the house.
The supply bill based on these estimates must be passed, as it invariably is, before the end of the fiscal year. If at any time some question arises about which the information is not readily available, and on which there may be an extended discussion, it might, as my hon. friend suggested, be useful to have it stand and deal with others on which there may be little or no discussion, and then come back to the other question and deal with it in a bit greater detail; but I must reiterate that these are all estimates which relate to the present fiscal year. The supply bill that will be passed will consist of one bill covering all of them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make this comment, if I may, in answer to what the minister said. When I said that some were more urgent than others I was not suggesting that any were going to stand indefinitely. I only made the suggestion. The

only reason for our trying to make this distinction is that it might be more convenient, from the minister's own point of view, to take those that seemed, at any rate to us, to have that degree of urgency which I attempted to outline.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be quite happy to cooperate in that. I think it is an excellent suggestion.


Mr. Thatcher:: If we are dealing with item 563 I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture is going to be in the house. I think he should be. However, in reply to what the Minister of Finance just said, item 563, which is before us now, is a very urgent matter. Yet to all intents and purposes the government has brought this item down on the last sitting day of the fiscal year-nekt Monday, of course, is private members' day.
I desire to take five minutes to discuss one particular aspect of this item, and I hope the minister will not tell me that the urgency is such that I cannot have that five minutes. This item is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada $665,000. I suppose it is the first instalment in the fight against foot-and-mouth disease. It is a very substantial sum of money, but I want to say that the amount is a fraction of what will be needed, unless we do something in the very near future to end these provincial embargoes against the movement of livestock. I understand that four provinces have a ban on at the present time. That embargo is having very serious effects.
In the first place, of course, it is completely disrupting the marketing of cattle, and is causing disastrous financial losses to many farmers.
In the second place it is creating a good deal of ill will and ill feeling between various provinces. For instance, I have an article in my hand which sums up the Alberta-British Columbia situation. This article was carried yesterday by the Canadian Press. It reads as follows:
Alberta, angered by British Columbia's reluctance to lift its embargo against Alberta meats and southern livestock, indicated yesterday it will seek a quick court test . . .
The article goes on:
At Victoria, Harry Bowman, British Columbia's agriculture minister, indicated that Alberta will have a fight on its hands. He said any challenge by the Alberta government will not bring any change in B.C. government policy.
The Alberta minister of agriculture went even further. A few days ago he threatened retaliation unless British Columbia lifts its ban. He said that Alberta may cut off the

export of oil into and through British Columbia. There are dangerous possibilities in the situation.
In the third place, these provincial embargoes are ill-advised, because they are giving examples to many foreign countries. Perhaps those countries may copy them.
This government should take immediate steps to test the constitutionality of these provincial bans. I think that Canadians everywhere, whether they are farmers, producers, consumers or packing house workers, want to know whether these embargoes are legal or not. I say that these restrictions which are today threatening to strangle interprovincial trade, are contrary to our constitution. I say further that the provincial governments that have imposed these embargoes are playing with fire, because restrictions of that kind can work both ways.
I think it is conceivable that if the provinces which have put on these embargoes persist with them, perhaps the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta may be forced to consider retaliatory action. Perhaps they will be forced to consider whether it is advisable to put on counter-embargoes against such products as fish, lumber, fruit and certain manufactured goods. I admit at once that such a policy would be undesirable and most unfortunate. But I also say that the possibility does point out the dangers inherent in this present situation.
I was particularly surprised to read in the papers of the actions of the Quebec government in this regard. As long as I have been in politics I have heard Premier Duplessis scream from one end of his province to the other that the constitution is inviolate, and that under no circumstances should any of its clauses be disregarded. Yet he personally, without a second thought, tramples on the constitution, for the sake of political expediency. I think it is most regrettable, and I appeal to all the provinces to take some action to end this discrimination before the livestock industry of Canada, which after all amounts to more than $2 billion, is hurt for years to come.
I am not a lawyer, but as a layman it seems to me that the British North America Act says specifically that matters of trade come under federal jurisdiction. As far as agriculture is concerned, I believe that federal legislation likewise supersedes any provincial legislation that there may be. Why has the government been vacillating and so hesitant in getting a decision on this important matter? Last February 29 the hon. member for
Supply-Agriculture
Calgary East asked this question in the house, as reported at page 15 of Hansard:
Has the minister looked into or had determined the constitutionality of the action of some of the provinces in putting an embargo on all livestock...
And so on. The Minister of Agriculture replied:
Yes, the government has looked into it.
Then he said:
The general position is that in connection with agriculture and immigration, as is known in this house, both authorities have the right to legislate. But the general interpretation is that, where both have legislated, our legislation overrides the provincial legislation.
I think that statement was fairly definite. The federal government has whatever authority is required to take action in this situation; a month has gone by since the minister made his statement, but apparently nothing has been done. The embargoes remain. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice whether his department contemplated any action, and he made this answer, as reported at page 841 of Hansard:
As yet we have had no occasion to consider the legality of the bans.
Surely that was a most unfortunate answer. Here we have the livestock marketing industry of Canada slowly grinding to a halt and the federal Minister of Justice tells us that he has had no occasion to examine the legality of the bans. To me that seems very strange.


Mr. Harkness:: The opposite of what the Minister of Agriculture said.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Exactly. I am not going to take any further time, but I call upon the federal government to assume its responsibility in this regard, and to place some kind of an injunction with the courts, which will eliminate these embargoes without further delay. I think if the government refuses to take that action, even if the provinces later on agree to take it on by themselves, there will have been set a very serious precedent which, later on, could tear this country apart. That will be the condition if trade restrictions of this kind are going to be allowed. The farmers on the prairies today are looking to their federal government to protect them under the constitution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I rise to a point of order, one which was discussed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw in the earlier part of his remarks. I refer to the absence of the Minister of Agriculture during this discussion concerning foot-and-mouth disease, and to the absence of other ministers whose departments will be affected as we go along. If the ministers are not going to be here I

Supply-Agriculture
suggest it becomes almost impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion, or to have proper answers.
I do not expect that the Minister of Finance will be able to answer all the questions asked in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, or immigration, or many other matters. I suggest we should settle first, at this point, whether the minister should be here to answer the questions concerning his department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member, who has been in the house for some time, will understand that these are estimates to pay bills which follow as a result of policies already approved. The item before us now, for instance, is to provide the money to make possible what the House of Commons, after three days' debate a week or two ago, decided should be done. This item is to pay the bills only up to the end of the year. There is another item in the main estimates which we will be considering in due course and on which, I imagine, an extensive discussion will take place. There will be full discussion at that time, I should think, in respect of contagious diseases among animals,
I do not wish to hamper discussion in any way, but I must point out that if we duplicate debates four or five times, then it becomes difficult to provide for any sort of orderly discussion in the house. We have already approved the principle of paying compensation for these diseased animals. This is an amount sufficient to provide for payments that have become due by Monday night. There will have to be a further vote and, I am afraid, a very substantial one, to pay for what comes due after that time.
I will get such of my colleagues as are available but, as the committee will realize, there are other calls on their time, and it is difficult to have all of them in the house at the same time. However, I might be able to give the information in connection with this matter that the hon. member wishes to have, because all these items were carefully considered in treasury board in my presence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Speaking again to the same point of order, and in reply to what the minister has said, while these estimates are for sums in addition to what we voted last year, I must point out that matters have changed considerably since we had our discussion at the beginning of the session with respect to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. To some extent conditions are changing from day to day.
The minister's statement that we have had discussion on these matters in the past-and [at- this moment it is many months in the past

-surely does not put us in the position where we should not be able to ask questions of ministers and receive answers from them in respect of any subject appearing in the supplementary estimates. We should have the ministers here for that purpose.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If we have an extended discussion on every item in the supplementary estimates in respect of every department, then I suggest it makes the business of parliament nearly impossible. I can give my hon. friend any information he wants as to how the $665,000 is being spent. I have the data before me. But I do suggest this is not the time to embark upon a discussion of the principle of compensation for these contagious diseases.
We have already had considerable discussion in the matter, and we are bound to have much more. There has been talk about amending the rules of the house; but, for heaven's sake, if we cannot exercise some measure of self-control in debate, there is not much use talking about amending the rules.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: The minister's answer to my colleague from Calgary East is most inappropriate at this time. Here we have a vote in respect of something never before considered in our history.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It relates to more than foot-and-mouth disease, I may say.


James Arthur Ross: We have questioned the minister about the basis of payment. That matter had not been settled. A board was set up under the legislation to arrive at a basis of settlement. It was a month ago today the session opened. Several of us have asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a basis of settlement has been arrived at, and he has answered that it has not, but that when it was done he would make a statement to the house explaining the basis of payment for the herds that must be destroyed. I am very much disappointed the minister is not here to answer those questions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not quarrel with that too much. I am ready to allow the item to stand, and we will have the minister here later. But I do feel that we cannot do this on every item, or we will just never finish our work. In respect of this item I can see there may be a number of cogent questions hon. members might wish to ask.
Let it stand. But there are several items, and we cannot allow them all to stand.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Greenwood has made it clear that we would not be discussing all of them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Stands.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman, I have allowed other members to speak, but I wish to speak now because this is a very-important item, so far as my constituency is concerned.
I have not opposed the payment of full compensation in respect of foot-and-mouth disease, but I must point out that people in Nova Scotia have suffered greatly because of the existence of that disease in western Canada, because of the embargo placed upon the shipment of meat products.
I have risen to say that in Nova Scotia we have a complaint against the health of animals branch. I brought the matter up in the house on December 29, at which time I received only a partial reply from the Minister of Agriculture. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Souris and other members, that it is most surprising-indeed, it seems to me there must have been some plan or scheme- that the Minister of Agriculture or his assistant could not be present this afternoon to give even a small amount of information on an expenditure amounting to $665,000.
It is amazing that this should be the case. In fact, it is almost an insult to members of the House of Commons, and to members in the opposition to whom an appeal is made to allow these items to pass-. The hon, member for Greenwood has said that we are not going to hold up the items, but that we do want certain fundamental information.
At this time I am going to refer to Newcastle disease in Nova Scotia, and I make a direct charge against the health of animals branch in respect of the recommendations it made, and the encouragement it gave to the owners of hatcheries in Nova Scotia-I believe there were eleven hatcheries directly affected-to use these vaccines. The department sent down live vaccine which, instead of preventing the disease, inoculated all these hatcheries.
The $4,400,000 voted last year is increased this year to $4,889,000. The poultry users of Nova Scotia received from the branch the vaccines that brought this dangerous disease into Nova Scotia. The branch admits that the flocks were inoculated hy the vaccine * from the branch, and- yet we are now- asked to vote it a large sum of money.
I should like now to read briefly from a report, I-received about tep-days ago. I- stall
Supply

Agriculture
not read the whole of it, but the pertinent part is as follows:
An inactivated vaccine was prepared and released by this department on request to the provinces who assumed the responsibility for vaccination.
Field evidence suggests that the vaccine caused this disease, since with the exception of two flocks the disease appeared only in vaccinated flocks.
These are the admissions of the department:
(a)	The virus found in the Nova Scotia outbreaks was much more virulent and not of the same type as that found in the Ontario outbreaks.
(b)	Virus isolated from infected flocks which were tested is much more virulent than that which is used in making the vaccine.
(c)	Of bottles returned from Nova Scotia, unopened bottles of vaccine subjected to checking at the animal diseases research institute have failed to infect chickens tested whereas some partly used bottles-
Partly used ii these hatcheries in Nova Scotia by government officials-
-contained the virulent strain of virus and brought about infection of test birds.
The federal department of agriculture did not instruct flock owners to use vaccines, and
It is the intention of the department to complete investigations at the earliest moment possible in consultation with the province and determine responsibilities, if any, to flock owners.
Will consideration be given to the payment of compensation for the damages suffered by these hatcheries? I have a letter here from one of the hatcheries, dated March 20, which reads:
They did not instruct us to vaccinate, but they strongly advised doing so, and assured us that there would be no after effects. We feel therefore that it is their responsibility to pay for the losses caused by using the vaccine.
I would also like to inform you regarding the official report of the House of Commons, on Friday. March 14, where you brought up Newcastle disease, where in reply to your question Hon. J. G. Gardiner said that compensation has been paid to owners of flocks for birds and eggs destroyed for the purpose of controlling Newcastle disease. I would like to advise you that to date not one cent of compensation of any kind has been received by myself, or my brother, and I have been told by good authority that the Pictou county farmers have not received any compensation either. I think this matter should be brought to the attention of the house, as they cannot expect farmers to go back into the poultry business without money to do so, and it is not fair that they should have to undergo hardships due to lack of money because of their losses with Newcastle disease.
I have received letters from other hatcheries. On March 19 a question which had been asked by the hon. member for Anna-polis-Kings was answered, as reported on page 586 of Hansard. The questions and answers are as follows:
1.	How many birds in Nova Scotia within the last six months have been destroyed because of infection, or exposure to Newcastle disease?
2.	How rriuch compensation has been or will be paid for each such bird so destroyed? "

S upply-A griculture
3.	Were the flocks from which such birds originated previously vaccinated by a serum proposed to protect against Newcastle disease?
4.	If so, from what source was such vaccine obtained?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	30,300 birds.
2.	According to schedule (of current market values) effective July 1, 1951.
3.	A vaccine, yes.
4.	Animal diseases research institute, Hull, Quebec.
I demand that the small hatcheries in Nova Scotia should receive compensation. The amount of compensation that would be paid is small in comparison with what has been paid in the west. These men have sent in their accounts which have been before the department for months. I brought up this matter in December last but I did not discuss it at any length because we did not want to give unnecessary publicity to this great menace.
This great poultry industry has been built up in recent years until today it has an output valued at $10 million a year. However, the householders are so alarmed about the danger of using birds or eggs from these districts that they have stopped buying. This matter is exceedingly important and I urge that full compensation be paid. These men have sent in their accounts and they are entitled to a reply. We have passed legislation giving full and adequate compensation to the farmers and stock raisers who have suffered from foot-and-mouth disease, and I appeal to the committee to see that the same treatment is given to these hatcheries in Nova Scotia.
It is true that we are only a small province; it is true that we are shoved to one side on every possible occasion, but here is a case where fair and reasonable compensation should be paid in relation to what is being paid in Saskatchewan for foot-and-mouth disease. I consider it the duty of the Minister of Agriculture and his officials to see that adequate compensation is paid, especially when we are being appealed to to pass other large items for compensation. I am not going to hold up the item, but I do want an answer as to when this compensation will be paid.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I can help my hon. friend, one of the main reasons for asking for this additional amount is that very extensive outbreaks of Newcastle disease have occurred in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.


Percy Chapman Black: Not in Nova Scotia. There has been no Newcastle disease there in the last few years or anywhere in the maritime provinces. This Newcastle disease was brought in by the Minister of Agriculture or his department.
[Mr. Black (Cumberland).!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: However it was brought in, we need some money to pay for these birds.


Percy Chapman Black: Last year this house voted over $4 million, and now we are being asked for another $400,000 or $500,000 in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. It would appear that that other outbreak was due to the incompetent manner in which they dealt with it, and the same can be said about the outbreak of Newcastle disease in Nova Scotia. Instead of preventing it, they caused it.


James Arthur Ross: Should not this item wait until the Minister of Agriculture is here later this afternoon?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be happy to do that. Are there any other items that could be passed?


Percy Chapman Black: I would like to know from the Minister of Finance whether he is in a position-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps we might settle this. The hon. member for Souris has asked that the item stand, and I understood the minister to say that he was agreeable. If the item is to stand there should be no more discussion and we could pass on to another item.


Percy Chapman Black: I am agreeable to that, but I was going to ask the minister if, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and his assistant, he can give the house any information in answer to the inquiries I have made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think we should leave the details until the Minister of Agriculture is here. The Minister of Agriculture or his assistant will be able to answer the detailed inquiries. Can we pass on to item 564?


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has to be either one or the other. Either we get the Minister of Agriculture or we go on.


Harry Oliver White: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which do you want?


Harry Oliver White: Let us be
patient. I regret the mockery that is being made of parliament this afternoon. The ministers of the crown knew that we were being asked to spend $280 million of the people's money, and up to a moment ago only four out of the twenty-one members of the cabinet were in their seats to answer questions.


An hon. Member:: Where is your leader?


Harry Oliver White: It does not matter, he will take care of himself. He will be here after the next election when some of you fellows are away.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You may not be here.


Harry Oliver White: On two occasions I have asked the minister questions about the outbreak of trypanosomiasis in western Ontario and on each occasion the minister said the matter was going to be taken care of. I should like to quote what he said on the last occasion, as reported on page 76 of Hansard of March 3. Referring to the arrangements he said:
If they have not been made, they will be made right away. Then, we would put in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to cover an amount similar to what is being provided for in this legislation.
It is not in the estimates we are going to discuss for next year; it is in the estimates we are discussing for this year. I want to know if provision is being made to pay for the fifteen head of cattle that died prior to the time the department made up their minds as to what it was. I am not going to let this item pass until I know.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understood it was suggested that the item should stand until the Minister of Agriculture could be here.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The suggestion has been made that the item should stand. This is going to stand or we are going to have discussion upon it. A decision must be made. Is there unanimous consent that the item stand?
Item stands.
Marketing service-
565. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $11,222.


Mr. McLure:: There is an amount of $1,561 for a dairying company. No information is given with regard to this. I take it for granted that of the total amount of $4,906, $3,345 has already been paid and this is an extra amount of $1,561. Last season I had similar trouble with another factory or dairying company down there under this cold storage item. I should like to know definitely before this passes why there is this extra vote of $1,561 and whether the $3,345 has been paid already. I think probably the minister can give me that information. Then I notice that there was supposed to have been something in the supplementary vote for the Crapaud dairying company. It is
Supply-Agriculture
not mentioned in this estimate, unless there is going to be another supplementary estimate. I should like to find out about the North Wiltshire Dairying Company. Why were they not paid previously?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As the committee probably knows, contracts are entered into with the Department of Agriculture for construction of these cold storage warehouses. Such contracts call for the payment of 30 per cent of the cost of approved construction. That is clearly established policy, and in all proper cases payment is made. We originally voted $535,707, and then there was a supplementary amounting to $88,355, which totalled $624,062. Contracts which have been entered into, and which are now due for payment, call for another $11,222, including I suppose the North Wiltshire dairy to which my hon. friend refers. This extra $11,222 is to cover all the amounts that have come due or will come due up to Monday night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
567.	Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces-further amount required, $400,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to have that matter stand, as there are some questions I should like to ask of the Minister of Agriculture.
Item stands.
568.	To provide assistance to the apple growers in British Columbia on their 1950 apple crop, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $1,200,000.


Mr. Charlton:: I should like this item to stand, too.
Item stands.


[Stage Direction]
570.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $124,950.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: This item is one which we feel might be allowed to stand. We do not think there is the same degree of urgency with respect to that as the others. I should like the minister to allow the item to stand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no objection, but it is entirely for salaries, with some other minor expenses. Could we not deal with it now? There have been increases in salaries in the C.B.C., just as there have been in the civil service generally. The main part of this item is to provide for these increases in salaries.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think that with that explanation it might pass.
898

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the details at the back of the booklet, these amounts seem to relate exclusively to the shortwave broadcasting service.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the only part we vote, except the special grant, and that is in the main estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This sum is required for the payment of salaries in the current fiscal year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: With one exception; there is $18,000 which relates to the printing of publications for which contracts have been let.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
571.	Field and inspection service, Canada-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $329,300.
Mr. Hees:: There are a number of things with which I find fault in regard to the government's immigration policy. I should like to briefly list them at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would the hon. member care to have the minister here? Actually, he is at a meeting, and I think he will probably be here later if the hon. member would prefer it. Could we have that one item stand?
Item stands.
572.	To provide for the extension to March 31, 1952, of the period during which payments may be made to Trans-Canada Air Lines of the difference in cost between air transportation and minimum tourist class ocean transportation for immigrants transported from the United Kingdom by Trans-Canada Air Lines during such extended period- further amount required, $350,000.


Mr. Pearkes:: Is this item to stand, too?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this further amount made necessary because there were more immigrants carried than were expected or has there been an increase in the cost of operation? If more people were carried than expected, is that a result of activities undertaken by the department to step up the flow of immigrants or is it the result of something over which the department had no control?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The additional amount is required for the extension of the scheme from December 31 to March 31. The original authorization only provided for the subsidized air travel plan to operate until December 31. Prior to December 31 the cabinet decided the plan should be continued until the end of the fiscal year, and authorized the inclusion of the amount in the supplementary estimates to do so. The cash required was provided out of unforeseen, and this is

really a vote to reimburse that vote. Legally, I suppose we need not have brought in the item at all.


George Randolph Pearkes: If this item is not to stand, there is a question I should like to ask.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Since the minister has come in, perhaps we could revert to item 571.
The Chairman.: We shall consider items 571 and 572 together.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to ask a question on item 572. Do the immigrants who have been brought here since the end of December 31, from the United Kingdom, include personnel who are not citizens of the United Kingdom, people who might be described as displaced persons coming from Europe, or are they all United Kingdom citizens?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: They are not all
United Kingdom citizens. When the scheme was started, it was announced as a scheme to aid the migration here of people from the British isles, having in mind the fact that transportation was lacking to a greater extent from the United Kingdom than it was from continental Europe. There have come from the United Kingdom people who were not United Kingdom citizens.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then I should like to make this observation. Owing to the fact that at this season of the year, that is between December 31 and April 1, there has been a considerable amount of unemployment in Canada, and that unemployment has been aggravated by bringing those people who are not even British subjects from Europe by air and distributing them across Canada. I do not think it is a proper expenditure.
It so happens that during the month of January I paid a visit to an immigration centre and I saw about 100 young Europeans, some of whom had only just arrived while others had been there for three months. They were being maintained at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer while the Department of Citizenship- and Immigration was trying to' hunt up jobs for them. They had no particular appointment to come to. These individuals had arrived, and they had to be fed and housed by the department. The department was sending out its field men to get employment for them, and at the same time competing with our labour department which was endeavouring to find jobs for Canadian citizens who were also unemployed. It seems to me that this has been an extremely foolish thing to do, and now we are voting extra money to bring these European youths to this country by air instead of letting them wait until there was an opportunity to bring them by boat. In this way they would have

arrived at a time when there would have been an opportunity for work and they would not have had to be kept. We are not only paying the difference between sea passage and air passage; we are also maintaining them all these winter months.
Why was it necessary to speed up the arrival of these people in this country? Why was it necessary to bring them by air instead of waiting until they could take sea passage in the normal course of events?


Walter Edward Harris: There was no speeding up during the winter months. On the contrary, there were fewer who came forward.


George Randolph Pearkes: There was a speeding up because they were brought by air instead of waiting until they could get passage by ship in three months' time.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps we are disagreeing about the use of words. I understood the hon. member to refer to the speeding up of immigration during the winter months. If all he means is that the normal flow of immigrants should have been reduced under those circumstances during the three months, that is a different matter; but I understood him to say we had speeded up immigration during the winter months by the use of this scheme, and that is not the case. The air scheme was continued as it had been a year ago. It must be remembered that this program began on December 1, 1950, and has been continued since that time. It was carried on during the winter months a year ago with no consequences such as those to which the hon. member now refers. I take it that the camp to which he is referring was Victoria.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, that is the one I saw.


Walter Edward Harris: It is correct, Mr. Chairman, to say that we had a number in Victoria during the winter months. There are thirteen there today, which shows that we have been reasonably successful in placing these people during the winter months. I am free to admit that anyone could make out a case for closing down immigration on October 1 and opening it again on April 1, if he wished to do so. Experience has shown you just cannot do that. It is true that you must be careful, and you should not flood the market during the winter months particularly, because seasonal unemployment will occur in Canada every winter. It may well be that we should have seen that fewer people came this winter in particular industries, but I suggest to the house, as a fact, that at no time during those winter months have we had more than roughly 2,000 workers at any time throughout our camps in Canada;
55704-57J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that is not a large number considering the fact that we find 190,000 people came here during 1951.
Admittedly there have been some difficulties and we have overcome them pretty well. I suggest, however, that an immigration program based on a six-month period is not possible nor is it desirable because the farming community needs their workers on April 1 and up until July 15. We have been bringing out farm workers throughout the winter months, and there are none of them that I know of in our hostels at the moment.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does this apply only to farm workers?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not mean to convey that impression. I was giving that as an example of the fact that you must maintain some immigration during the winter months. I could add that you must bring dependents because there are more dependents abroad than there should be, in the minds of those here who are waiting for them; and the fall and the winter season is a proper time to bring them here, if your transportation is short for the workers in the summer season.


George Randolph Pearkes: As this was quite a burning question in British Columbia in the early months of this year,-


Walter Edward Harris: I can well understand that.


George Randolph Pearkes: -can the minister say just how many passages this amount covers?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. This amount covers about 1,670 or 1,680 passages; something of that order.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to ask the minister a question, but before doing so I should like to say that I certainly cannot agree with what the hon. member for Nanaimo just said. If there is one department of the government that I think is really functioning, it is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I think the figures speak for themselves and I hope the minister will keep up the good work. The question I should like to ask is this, and I may say that I have had several inquiries from my constituents. It concerns Canadians who stayed in England after the war, married English girls and who now have not the funds to come back to Canada, but wish to do so. Is there any way in which they can get this kind of assisted passage?


Walter Edward Harris: The purpose of the assisted passage was to promote immigration to Canada. Speaking strictly offhand, I would suppose that that was intended to cover a person who was not entitled to come

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to Canada as of right. The Canadian citizen resident abroad may return as of right. Nevertheless, if there is a problem there which my hon. friend has in mind, I shall be glad if he will let me know about it, and we will consider the question of whether one could use the assisted passage scheme for the returning Canadian.


George Harris Hees: I have no fault at all to find with the policy of the government in bringing in 200,000 immigrants a year. The fault I find is with the way these immigrants are handled once they arrive in Canada. As far as I can make out-and I have spent some time getting information on this matter-it seems that the government has based its policy on the idea that you can bring these immigrants to Canada, simply dump them into the labour market and assume that they are going to be able to fend for themselves from then on. As a result of the many contacts that I have made with these people, I can say that they are just not able to do that. The natural result of this policy is that many	industries-especially agriculturewhich badly need workers are still exceedingly short while cities, such as my own city of Toronto, have been swamped with these immigrants during the winter months, from November until the present time, and those immigrants simply become a load on the taxpayers. The ones that have obtained a job have usually done so at the expense of Canadian workmen because, coming from Europe, they have been accustomed to a lower standard of living and are willing to accept employment at wages lower than the going Canadian rate of wage.
Another thing which this unplanned policy of immigration has done-and which has resulted in the flocking of these immigrants to the cities-is that it has caused a tremendous upset in connection with the housing problem in cities such as Toronto and many others across the country, especially at a time when the government's policy of cutting out their one-sixth mortgage loan and increasing the interest rate on National Housing Act has decreased the number of houses started in this country during the last twelve months by 24 per cent. This has caused an intolerable situation, especially in cities. I think that one of the things this government has got to realize is that an immigrant without a job is not an asset to the country, but is, instead, a liability.
I believe that these immigrants should be brought in to fill specific jobs for which there is a shortage of Canadian workmen and not simply to swell the ranks of the


unemployed, as has been the situation during the last year, in a great number of cases. If these people are brought in to a specific job where they are needed and if they are kept at that job for a minimum of one year or possibly two, I believe that at the end of that time they will have learned the language, will probably have learned to like their surroundings and the job that they are working at, and in all probability will stay at it instead of simply flocking to the cities and aggravating the problems of unemployment and housing which already exist in those cities.
If the government wants to make a success of this policy of immigration, I think they should give consideration to bringing people in to specific jobs and require them to stay for a certain length of time. If they do that, I think they will find that these people will stay there, that these industries that need workers will get them. In addition, I think the people who come in will be happier. There will not be nearly as many drifters. The immigration policy will then be one which will contribute to the productivity and the growth of this country instead of being in the chaotic condition which I believe it is in today.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I do not intend to make a speech, Mr. Chairman; I want to ask some questions. Like the hon. member for Moose Jaw I agree with the government's immigration policy. The figure was 200,000, was it not?


Walter Edward Harris: It was 194,000.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think it should have been 394,000. That is the only quarrel I have with it. I believe it should have been larger. I am interested in the inspection of those coming in here, and I refer to the situation in the province of British Columbia with respect to the municipalities. I am not now talking about young men. The municipalities are unfortunately being called upon to care for these people. It is the municipalities that are being called upon to do this, not the provincial government and not the federal government which brought them here. It is the poor little farm owner in the municipality who must shoulder the burden. Immigrants come in at the age of 65 or over. I should like the minister to explain who is going to care for those people. Are you going to expect individual municipalities to continue doing that?


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: I wonder if the minister would not consider setting up distributing centres for immigration?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Might I first have an answer to my question?


Walter Edward Harris: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, may I say that it is not often that a person over 65 is admitted to Canada. In general the policy is to point out that opportunities are available here for those of younger years. It may well be that the case which my hon. friend has in mind is that of a parent of a Canadian citizen. If that is the case, I would suppose that, upon application by the child for the parent, an engagement would be given to provide housing, to maintain the parent and so on, if the parent were not able to look after himself. That may not be the case, but I would think it probably is. If the hon. member will give me the details, I shall look into the matter. If there is an obligation on the child, I am sure that the child should have that obligation drawn to his attention.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The reason I am talking about inspection is this. I will mention one case, not by name, in which there must be slackness somewhere. I understand that the child or the relative is supposed to care for these people. But I can refer to one case- and for ten years I had certain municipal experience-where the relative was on relief all the time. He learned that racket of relief. This immigrant I would say was 60 years of age and over-


An hon. Member:: What is the name?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh no, I am not going to give the name. You would not want your constituent's name put on the record, and I am not going to put this one on. I will give the minister the name in private. I want to know what the policy is. Are the municipalities going to be called upon to bear the burden if the son or daughter is on relief and falls down on his or her obligations? I think that the minister's department must have fallen down in not seeing that the proper security was put up by the relatives. I therefore say his department is responsible and not the municipality.


George Matheson Murray: I think immigration should be limited to western Canada. I do not think it is good policy to take some thousands of these people and place them in the province of Ontario, for instance, or in the cities of Quebec when in the west we have large areas where they could settle and make their way. Up in northeastern British Columbia there is a need for a definite policy with regard to handling these immigrants. I suggest that the government consider a distributing centre
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration where groups of these people coming in could pause and wait a few days or a few weeks until work is provided for them or until they are able to acquire some land to find their way around. At the present time no provision is made for these newcomers. Naturally they find things difficult, coming as they do into a strange country, not knowing the language and knowing little about the geography of the country. There is a problem there. I consider that the railways should co-operate with the government of Canada in setting up some sort of hostels, particularly up in the Peace river country, where families could be housed' and kept for a few days or a few weeks until work was found for them. I might say that there is plenty of employment available up in that part of the country, particularly for agricultural people. The number of people being brought over from Europe should be increased. It must be obvious to this house that we are spending many millions of dollars for military and economic support to those countries over there in Europe. There is no more humane or more sensible way of assisting them than by taking some of the surplus population from that war-ridden part of the earth up into western Canada, and giving them a chance to have their own land and to build houses. I think the minister is doing a good job, but he should have more support. There should be just a little more planning in respect to placing settlers in western Canada.


Mr. Brooks:: I do not wish to enter into any debate on the question of immigration. I imagine there will be time later on to discuss immigration. After listening to the remarks, one would think that quantity was what was wanted in this country in so far as immigration was concerned; whereas I think quality is more important than quantity. Eut that is something we can discuss later.
My reason for rising now is to ask the minister whether he is making the most of the facilities which he has at the different ports in Canada for dealing with immigrants. I ask this question as the result of a return which I received the other day, and which indicated that out of some 200,000 immigrants brought into Canada last year only 6,000 came in through the port of Saint John. I am told that in the port of Saint John we have one of the finest immigration sheds not only in Canada but anywhere in North America. It does seem to me that in view of the fine facilities we have in Saint John, 6,000 immigrants out of 200,000 coming to the country is just a mere trickle.
A moment ago an hon. member said something about not bringing immigrants in, in

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the winter months. The only immigrants who come to Saint John come in the winter months of December, January and February. In addition to having these fine facilities, Saint John is a year-round port. I do not believe that the minister's department is making the proper use of these fine facilities. Cannot more use be made of the facilities that exist in the port of Saint John?


Walter Edward Harris: I was most surprised when I saw the return to my hon. friend. I shall be glad to look into the question of whether a better way can be found of using the facilities at Saint John to a greater extent than the return indicated.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They have very fine facilities.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, yes.


Mr. Blair:: What measure of control has the minister over immigrants coming to this country for farm labour purposes? I have had letters, sometimes twice a week, from farmers who have applied for an immigrant. They have got them over to this country and the immigrants have stayed probably two or three weeks or a month and then left. Sometimes the farmers say that they are quite satisfied with the work of the immigrant, but apparently the immigrant simply uses the application by the farmer as a vehicle to get into this country, and once he gets here he gets away to the city as fast as he can. This is a problem in my constituency, particularly to the dairy farmers. These farmers apply for a man, counting on him to do some work, and then they are left without any person to help. I had one letter from a very up-to-date farmer who is operating a rather large dairy farm. He pointed out that owing to the trouble in getting labour it was becoming too hard for himself, his wife and his family to continue. He cited the troubles he had in bringing people to this country to work for him. He mentioned making application to the department, and then the man would leave and he would be in trouble again. I have had several letters on this matter, and I should like the minister to tell me what measure of control he has over these people. When a farmer makes application and the immigrant comes in and is accepted, what can be done to make him carry out his part of the bargain?


Walter Edward Harris: There are two kinds of farm immigration. There is the immigration under what was the IRO, administered by the Department of Labour, and the immigration under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Under the former an engagement was taken with the person who came by the assistance of the
IMr. Brooks.]

IRO that he would remain in employment for a year. There have been many occasions in the house when the question of persons leaving under those conditions had been brought to the attention of the former minister of labour, but not so much to the later one. My impression of that was that every effort was made to see that the farm worker carried out his contract. I do not know of any instances when persuasion went beyond that.
In the case of immigration, we do not have a contract, but I am open to the suggestion that we should have one. Nevertheless, hon. members ought to bear this in mind. There are great disadvantages in trying to maintain the relationship of employer and employee when one or the other does not want it; and it can be argued that we should not go in for a form of forced labour, as that would be under certain conditions. I quite realize that that is not a satisfactory answer to the farmer who, in the midst of the haying season, loses the man that he thought was going to stay with him for the season. At the same time, we have discussed this with farm representatives time and time again, and they are not unanimous that there should be anything more than there is in the way of persuasion of the worker. I know it is frustrating, and certainly, as far as the department is concerned, we frown upon it as much as we can. We have sent our placement officers time and time again to these people asking them not to leave, when they have given notice. We point out to them the obligation that they have to stay throughout the period of time, and in many cases it succeeds. However, many farmers who have lost their farm workers come to us and say: Well, if he does not want to stay we had better let him go. Get me another one, and we will do our best under those conditions.


Mr. Cardiff:: I might say that we too had an immigrant come to our place a year ago. I obtained him through the minister. He came direct from Holland, and a very fine specimen he is. I do not think that we ever had a better man around our place. I used this method of keeping him there because of the fact that he was suitable and we liked him very much. When he came to make arrangements with me as to what money he was to get I said to him: "Do you need money?" He said: "No, I do not, but I just wondered how much I was going to get." Owing to the fact that I was not at home myself, that conversation went on for a month or two before this happened, and we had plenty of time to know whether we liked him or not. This is what happened. Instead of trying to talk to him-he could not speak English very well, but he can

speak pretty well now-I took a lead pencil and a piece of paper, and I started him off on a low wage and I raised it $5 a month until the end of the year, which finally brought him up to $100 a month. I passed the paper back to him. I said: "This is more money than you asked for." I asked him first what wages he expected to get. He said, "I think I should get $70 a month." I said, "All right." Then I gave him this paper with the wage scale on it. It was a low wage to start with and then it was built up by $5 a month for twelve months. He is still with me. There have been no complaints one way or the other. He is a very fine chap, and as long as I can keep him there he is going to stay with me.


George Matheson Murray: If you keep on giving him $5 a month indefinitely it will be very profitable for him.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The point I tried to make, whether I made myself clear or not, is this. The fact of the matter is I started him off at $50 a month. He wanted $70. I said that if he wanted to stay there and earn high wages then it was up to him. If he wanted to move any place else, he could do so, but I started him off at the low wage.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister or his department, or any department of the government, had any conversations or communications with the British government with regard to the amount of assets which the English settler coming to Canada can bring in? We are losing many good settlers who are going to Australia and New Zealand because they can take the pounds that they have there, while they have to exchange pounds for dollars when they come to Canada. The British government, of course, is short of dollars. I was wondering whether the government has had any conversation recently with the British government with regard to this matter, or whether they were prepared themselves to accept the British pounds from some of these immigrants and give them our Canadian dollars-when they come to Canada. It seems to me that we could very well give some consideration to that.


Walter Edward Harris: 
Percy Ellis Wright: Over what period?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought it was four years, but the parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance says three years.


Mr. Quelch:: I sympathize with the minister regarding his difficulty in trying to formulate a satisfactory contract between the farm worker and the farmer. I doubt whether it would be possible to settle on such a contract, because if the farm worker is not satisfied with the conditions under which he is working, then if you tried to keep him there it would mean he would be a nuisance to the farmer. He would be better off elsewhere.
What I rose to say was that I hope the minister will not do anything to slow down the bringing of farm workers to this country. In the next few weeks there will be an urgent need for farm help in western Canada. The harvest was not completed; and unless it can be completed before seeding begins there may be serious loss.
No doubt there will be tremendous demand for farm help in the western provinces just as soon as the land is dry enough. Most farmers will be quite prepared to accept farm help several days or perhaps weeks before the harvest actually begins. The kind of farm help needed today, however, is quite different from that needed in the past. Today farming is a highly mechanized operation. Therefore the minister should try to bring to this country as many as possible of those who are used to farm machinery.
We realize that there may be some difficulty, in view of the fact that the men who are used to handling farm machinery would be qualified to get jobs elsewhere at higher wages. That is. especially true in Alberta where we have oil drilling operations. The oil drillers are offering much higher wages than prevail on the farm, thus making it difficult to keep the men who go to the farms. I certainly hope the minister will do all he can to expedite the bringing of farm workers to this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question, and in doing so I do not wish to anticipate the reply to a question now on the order paper. I would ask however whether information is now available to answer part of the question. My inquiry relates to the investigation in respect of irregularities connected with the investigation of immigrants, in so far as the presence in Canada of those taking
904	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration part in the irregularities is concerned. I realize that item 571 relates only to field and inspectional service. Has the minister information available which would answer that part of the question relative to investigations in respect of private citizens in Canada who took part in any irregularities in con-aection with the admission of certain immigrants from overseas?


Walter Edward Harris: I hope we do not get into a discussion of this subject, because we shall have a discussion of it on another occasion, and at much greater length than we could have now.
The investigations we are making are being made by the R.C.M.P. I do not think we should give out information, if we can avoid doing so, until the investigation has proceeded a little farther than it has at the moment. There would be the danger of hurting the public interest. I think however that briefly the answer to the hon. member's question would be in the negative. I might go farther and say that I do not think we know of any persons in Canada who are beyond the stage of being investigated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not hear the answer.


Walter Edward Harris: Who are in a
different position than that of being investigated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, I take it, the minister prefers to defer any further answer, because he believes his doing so would be helpful to the investigation?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will not press it, if that is so.


George Randolph Pearkes: The hon. member for Kamloops has been referring to private individuals in Canada connected with what has been described as a racket. I notice that Mr. Blair Fraser in Maclean's magazine of March 15 refers to corrupt government officials in Canada. Have any Canadian officials been charged or dismissed for corrupt practices in this connection?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes; a return was made to a question asked by the hon. member for Calgary East, I believe it was, in which three names were given.


Mr. Churchill:: I have a dozen questions I should like to put to the minister. I appreciate there will be other opportunities to discuss immigration, but I think these questions could be answered now. They are of interest to a number of people across Canada.
Would the minister state briefly the general departmental idea in connection with selective or planned immigration-and I believe those are the words used when the


subject of immigration is discussed. Is planning done with relation to jobs available in Canada, or areas in Canada that might require immigrants? Is planning done in relation to the various countries supplying the immigrants?
So that we may have the picture clearly before the committee, I would indicate that according to a press report of February 27, 1952, the minister, disclosing the 1951 figures to the national advisory council on manpower, indicated that the high rate of immigration would be continued for the next few months at least. The figures appearing in this press report which, I presume, is accurate, indicate that a total of 194,391 immigrants entered Canada during the last year.
The article states that 114,286 were workers and 79,605 were dependents. It does not break down the workers into various groups. Then, placing the immigrants according to areas, the article indicates that 104,842 entered Ontario, while 46,033 entered Quebec, with 3,927 going to the maritime provinces, including Newfoundland, and 39,588 to western Canada. Adding these totals I find I have lost one figure somewhere, but I guess that does not matter.
Then, turning to the matter of quotas by countries or by racial origins, and again looking at the figures, and comparing them with the answer given to a question I placed on the order paper last fall and, again accepting the figures in this press report, I find that nine out of forty racial groups enumerated as being represented among the immigrants entering Canada were listed as follows:
United Kingdom	 31,370
Germany	 32,395
The Netherlands	 19,130
Italy	 24,351
Poland	 12,938
The Ukraine	 6,804
Dennjark	 4,613
Finland	 4,130
Yugoslavia	 4,144
I shall not give the figures for the other thirty countries or racial groups mentioned. If the minister could answer this question it would indicate the system by which immigrants enter Canada, particularly in respect of the allocation of jobs, the areas to which they go, and the quotas set for the different countries.


Walter Edward Harris: I had intended saying all that upon introducing my estimates, when they are ultimately called. I do not know whether my hon. friend would insist upon having the information now. If

ne requires some of it for purposes of argument, I should be glad to give it. I would prefer however to state the policy when we are considering the main estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a few questions which can be answered shortly. Again, these are matters which would be covered by the main estimates, but I suggest some of the information should be given now. I am particularly interested in the standard of health required by anyone anxious to come to Canada, and who is now living in England. Are those who anticipate coming to Canada subject to medical examination by medical authorities employed by the department, or need one only submit a doctor's certificate?
I have in mind a particular case-and I shall give the minister the details later-in regard to a person living in Great Britain and wishing to bring his wife to Canada. The ages are 28 and 26 respectively. The man's heart is slightly affected, but a specialist in England gave him a certificate indicating that that would not seriously affect his living in Canada or working here. Yet this man is unable to secure the required authority from the immigration officials.
I have a second question along somewhat similar lines. This one has to do with age. To what extent is the age limit imposed? I base my question on another bit of information from England, where assisted passage has been sought by an experienced workman who is 46 years of age. Apparently that passage has been refused. I would ask the minister to answer those two question.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure the hon. member knows that there are certain prohibited classes set up in the Immigration Act. I do not recall that heart disease is included in that group, which would mean that the examination of a would-be immigrant with heart disease would be the same as an examination for any other disease he might have at the moment. Just offhand I doubt that he would be rejected for that particular thing. I shall be glad to look into the case my hon. friend has mentioned.
On the other score, I am not aware of there being any age limit on those who come out under the assisted passage scheme. Nevertheless it has not been the practice in immigration to admit to Canada persons over 46 years of age who might require assistance here to maintain themselves. That question arose in the case of the admission of a man 65 years of age brought up by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I would think that a man 46 years old would be entitled to come in under the Immigration Act and the regulations. If he has been refused assisted passage it may be that the skill he has is 55704-58
28. 1952	905
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration not on the list of those skills for which assisted passage is granted. It may be that his particular skill was not urgently needed in Canada.
I shall look into both cases mentioned. Earlier my hon. friend said that he presumed that the news report he was reading from was correct. I would not say that his presumption was not correct.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have one other question in connection with rail transportation provided for immigrants. My understanding is that in some instances they are carried in the old type colonist coaches with which some of us have been familiar in the past. They are not particularly comfortable for a long trip as the wooden seats are rather difficult. I know of one instance where the hot water supply was not maintained during the winter months, and I have also received complaints about the dirty condition of the coaches and windows. There is also the fact that rather excessive charges were made by the vendor of coffee on the train who charged $1.25 for a jug of coffee which produced five paper cupfuls. Is there an adequate inspection of these trains carried on and are the colonist coaches the only form of transportation available at the present time?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to look into what inspection services are maintained. I would like to say that at the tender age of seven I made a trip to my hon. friend's city in a colonist coach and it was not too bad.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have made many trips across this country in colonist cars and in worse cars elsewhere, but they do not constitute the best introduction to a new country. I should like to inquire whether free hospitalization is provided for immigrants who enter under the assisted passage arrangement. Is free medical attention available to their dependents?


Walter Edward Harris: No. We do not
grant free hospitalization to people who come out under the assisted passage scheme, but there is certain assistance we grant to all . immigrants if there is a proper agreement with the provinces. That assistance is not related to the assisted passage scheme.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the department consult with the provinces or make arrangements with them concerning the placing of immigrants in work or to take care of them while they are unemployed?


Walter Edward Harris: We have placement officers in all provinces whose duty it is to receive the immigrants, place them in employment which in many cases has been
906	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration assured before, or find employment for them. There is close co-operation between our placement officers and the national employment service. Provincial governments have departments that deal with immigrants, and they work with our department. In many cases they will place requests for immigrants at the beginning of the season in which case they accept some responsibility for placing the persons they ask for. In other cases I am quite sure that we use their good offices in aiding the immigrants whenever required.


George Harris Hees: I should like to go back for a moment to the matter raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo, that is the charge made against the department of immigration by Mr. Blair Fraser in the March 15 issue of Maclean's magazine. Mr. Blair Fraser is a reputable member of the press gallery.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think he made any charge against the department.


George Harris Hees: I will just read the heading of Mr. Fraser's article:
Corrupt Canadian government officials and unscrupulous travel agents have extorted thousands of dollars to smuggle Italian immigrants into Canada. This Maclean's report on an international racket shows its tools included bribery, blackmail and a beautiful blonde seductress.
That is the charge made against the employees of the department. In order to write about this situation Mr. Fraser must have known about it at least a month ago.
I would think the department would be familiar with the details by now. I contend that this committee is entitled to a much fuller statement by the minister because the situation must have been cleaned up by this time.


Walter Edward Harris: I assured the committee that at the proper time I would make a full statement on this subject. I can only say that an order was issued in the courts in Quebec whereby certain documents were seized which are now being studied by counsel for the department. While that study is going on I do not think it would be proper to make any further statement.


Mr. Jones:: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to one or two matters which I have passed on to him in the last month or two. The first concerns two young Chinese who made formal application to come to Canada before they had reached the age of 25 years. I understand that in both cases they were suitable from health and other standpoints. However, there was delay in processing the applications through Vancouver and Hong Kong with the result that by the time approval reached Ottawa the
(Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce).]

birthdays of both boys had occurred and technically they were too old to be admitted.
It seems to me that in these cases the same principle should be applied as is applied in the case of old age pension applications. The old age pension is paid from the date the application is received in Ottawa. If such had been the case these applications for entrance would have been approved and these boys could have been admitted. As their families live in Canada I think it is most unfair that because of delay in either Hong Kong or Vancouver, delay which was not their fault, they are not to be admitted. I urge the minister to consider changing the act or the interpretation to provide that the date official applications are received in Ottawa will be the date that applies.
The other matter concerns Chinese who visit China and stay over the permitted period of two years. When they return to Canada they find they must wait five or six years before they are eligible for Canadian citizenship. I have in mind a case which I submitted to the minister this week where a Chinaman who had lived in British Columbia for fifty years went to China for a holiday. While there he was taken ill and stayed three years. He is now back in Canada and is anxious to become a Canadian citizen but he has been told that he must wait until 1956.
Here we have a bona fide Canadian citizen who has lived far longer in Canada than in China and I submit that he should be admitted to citizenship. In this particular case the judge who investigated the matter approved the application. I submit that in a case like that the minister should allow the judge to assess the applicant's qualifications and go into the details of this visit. In this case the judge was satisfied that the application should be granted.
I do not think citizenship should be denied to any man. We should be ready to allow these people who are anxious to become Canadian citizens to become Canadian citizens.


Walter Edward Harris: May I just answer the hon. member briefly, because I know that if we take as much time on the other items as we have on these we shall not get through by the end of March. In the first case he mentioned, I can assure him that if there has been any neglect whatever on the part of this department it will not be held against the person who has rights under the act otherwise. I am sure my hon. friend will give me the details. In the other case he suggests an amendment to the Citizenship Act. I shall be glad to look into that and confer with him on the subject.


Mr. Sinnott:: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a couple who immigrated into Canada, their first destination being Windsor. They later took up residence in Manitoba in the municipality of which I have the honour jto be reeve. Both of them are on the sick list, and they made application to the municipality for help. The attitude of the council was -that they did not bring these immigrants here. We wrote to the minister -and received a reply to the effect that a deportation order was made some time ago but the order was cancelled. These people are going to be a -charge on the municipality if they find themselves in such condition that they cannot help themselves. What is the minister going to do about accepting responsibility in this regard?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: No, I want an answer.


Walter Edward Harris: I cannot give an answer without knowing the details. I shall confer with the hon. member and get them.


Mr. Wylie:: I just have a few words to say.
I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is doing a very good job. When I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre talking about immigrants who come to -this country riding in colonist cars,
I was very much surprised. When I came to this country from Scotland in 1913, I rode in a colonist car. In those days, that was the best we could afford. I came out here with three brothers, two sisters -and my mother and dad. We were glad to ride in those cars because we wanted to come to Canada. These new citizens who are coming to Canada must be mighty happy they are coming here. If they do not want to come here, let them stay where they are.
I have one thing to say to the minister. Today there are many European citizens coming out as farm labourers. When they come to this country as farm labourers, after about three or four months they do not want to stay on the farm. When they see the wages and salaries that are paid for jobs that -they were doing in the country from which they came, you cannot blame them. I think what should be done is to force these people to stay on the farm for two years, or whatever the term of the contract is. Instead of that, they have lots of friends out here, and they only stay on the farm for two or three months. It is certainly different from when I came out. At that time you went to a farm and stayed there. You had no friends to help you get into anything else. Perhaps it might be better if we had the same situation today.
55704-58J
28, 1952	907
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
There is only one way we can remedy the situation and that is to pay higher wages on the farm. As you know, on a farm they do not work five days a week or forty hours a week, they have to work seven days a week and fifteen or sixteen hours a day. I was raised on a farm, and I should know. You cannot blame the immigrants for wanting to leave the farm, but when they are brought out as farm labourers we should do our best to see to it that they stay on the farm. That is the main problem today, and if we could rectify that situation we would be doing something worth while.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would this be the appropriate time for me to make my usual appeal, Mr. Chairman? We have had a most interesting discussion on immigration which has covered a very wide range. So far within two hours we have only considered four items of all the items we have to consider. We shall be considering the regular items in the estimates on which a general discussion could take place. I hope-of course I do not want to offer too much advice-that we shall confine our discussion to asking special questions, perhaps as to how these items will be expended, instead of having a general discussion of the principle of immigration. There are a number of other items in which I know members are interested, and frankly I am beginning to become a little apprehensive about the length of time we might take.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The only reason I rose was that others were discussing the question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was not referring to the hon. member particularly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope the minister will not think I am being uncooperative if I take a moment to add something to a question that has been asked of the minister. It is with regard to a fact which I think is notorious, that a great many people coming here to do farm work just use the farm as a stepping stone to something else. I sympathize with the minister's perplexities about contracts because trying to force a man to do something he does not want to do is difficult. When the minister presents his estimates, will he give us his considered opinion as to the lesson, if there is a lesson and I believe there is, to be drawn from the fact that so much of this has happened, and what the department has concluded, because I hope there will be conclusions as to the way to deal with the problem.
My own feeling is that the only way to deal with the problem is to get the kind of people to come out here who desire to get ahead and become owners of land themselves. It does
908	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs seem to me a tremendously important problem and I hope when the minister brings his estimates forward we shall have an answer to that, supported by figures.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. There are differences in the national groups. Some will stay on the farm and others will not. I should be glad to discuss that on the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Indian Affairs branch-
573. Education-day and residential schools- operation and maintenance-further amount required, $85,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: In so far as this item represents an increase in the number of Indian children going to secondary schools, I am extremely glad to see it here. I should like to ask the minister, to what extent is that true? Looking at the details on page 16 I see that the major part of this item, $46,000, is for assistance to ex-pupils, including aid for education in secondary schools. Can the minister tell us what the increase is in the number of Indian pupils going to secondary schools?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not that information. I can add, however, there has been a substantial increase in the number of Indian pupils attending secondary schools, and that is why we need this particular vote.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to hear that. So far as the work of the residential school is concerned, because of the increased costs where the pupils have to be fed, clothed and everything else, these schools have had an extremely difficult time. They have been a heavy drain on the church funds of the various churches concerned. I hope the minister, when he brings forward his main estimates, will have provided an increase in the grants to those residential schools to an extent at least commensurate with the increase in the cost of living which has taken place since the grant was last increased.


Walter Edward Harris: We did decide on hn increase in the per capita grant for residential schools, and about the end of the year indicated that to the various organizations. This will account for some of the increase in the main estimates which have been tabled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
576. Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $40,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice that in the break-down of that item on page 17


there is travelling expenses, $9,000; subsistence allowances, $11,000; entertainment expenses, $1,000; and sundries, $19,000. I do not like to see $19,000 of a $40,000 item just lumped in sundries. It makes it too easy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps' I might give that information. It was checked by the treasury board. This was caused by the NATO conference in Ottawa in September, and it is to reimburse the contingencies vote-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister not speaking about item 577?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I beg your pardon. Item 576 is a total vote of $225,000. The holding of the general assembly of the United Nations in Paris instead of New York resulted in a greater amount needed than was originally estimated at the beginning of the year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
questioning the amount in one sense. I am saying that I dislike seeing, in a $40,000 item, $19,000 for sundries. It seems to me that we ought to have a break-down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can break it down for the hon. member. There is $9,000, travel; $30,000, subsistence; and $1,000, entertainment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is not breaking down the $19,000. I am not questioning any of the items the minister read. I am only questioning this situation. We find this item of $19,000 which is not explained at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is item 577. The $19,000 is in item 577. That is what I was trying to answer my hon. friend on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. Look at page 17.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The $40,000 is broken down into four items, including $19,000 for sundries.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know what is printed in the details but in the treasury board book these items are given: $9,000 travel, $30,000 subsistence and $1,000 entertainment expenses. It may be that the detail on page 17 is set out in the wrong way. If so, that is the explanation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to keep the committee longer now, but I am going to say again that I think for us to be given an item of $40,000, of which $19,000 is just under the blessed catch-all of sundries, is not good enough. I am not going to hold up the committee any longer at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Public debt charges-servicing of public debt-
580.	Commission for payment of interest on public debt, etc.-further amount required, $32,000.
Douglas Charles Abbott: The title of this item is just a little bit misleading. My hon. friend raised the point before. That is why I am giving the explanation now. This is for a total vote originally of $32,000 for the payment of interest, etc., on the public debt. Actually the amount here is only to provide for the cost of replenishing the reserve stock of our bonds depleted through transfer and exchange.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to municipalities-
581.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-further amount required, $249,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: No detail is given as to how that amount is spent and divided between the various municipalities. I do not want to make a long speech on behalf of the municipality of Esquimalt but, as the minister knows, this is one municipality that is hardest hit of all by reason of the amount of property owned by the government. Can the minister tell us how much of this amount is being allocated to Esquimalt and to other municipalities?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not that detail here. Esquimalt is taken care of in two ways: under this vote, with the main amount which was in before, and also some national defence payments. This amount is the estimated amount which they tell me will be required over and above the $1,845,000 that we voted in the estimates. I will get that information for my hon. friend and give it to him.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the minister. The
reason I asked the question is that Esquimalt did not feel that they had received a fair share of the first amount. I was hoping that all of this was going to Esquimalt.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
584. To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current and arrears payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year -further amount required, $4,943,977.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, this is an item on which, as I indicated the other day, I should like to make a brief statement.
When I tabled the further supplementary estimates the other day hon. members will recall that I also tabled a report on the actuarial examination of the civil service
Supply-Finance
superannuation account in the consolidated revenue fund for the period of March 31, 1931, to December 31, 1947. At that time I promised to make a statement on that report when the time came to discuss the items in these supplementary estimates which are concerned with the policy which the government proposes to follow in making its contributions as an employer to the superannuation account.
The department of insurance have made two actuarial examinations or valuations since the account was set up in 1924. The whole purpose of such a valuation is to make an actuarial estimate of the total liability and to determine if the balance in the account is sufficient to meet that liability. If it is not sufficient, we have a deficit which means that adequate provision has not been made for the payment of our liabilities.
Hon. members may recall that a year agcr parliament was asked to vote $75 million to reduce the deficit in this account. I then indicated that there was every reason to expect that the deficit would be several times that figure and this is now confirmed by the report. At December 31, 1947, the estimated total liability was $341,149,000 and the balance in the account amounted to $89,544,000 leaving a deficit of $251,605,000. I have since been advised by the chief actuary of the department of insurance that, by December 31, 1951, the total liability had increased to an estimated $509 million while the amount standing to the credit of the account had increased to $197 million. The deficit had thus increased to an estimated $312 million at December 31, 1951, even after the special contribution made a year ago.
Since the report was submitted1 to me it has been carefully studied in order to determine what should be done to reduce the existing deficit and to prevent the creation of a new one. In my later remarks I shall outline certain changes in policy and later in this session I shall introduce a bill to amend the act to take care of other aspects of this problem.
I should point out that the Civil Service Superannuation Act does not provide specifically for government payments except the payment of interest on the balance in the account but other contributions are implicitly required sooner or later if the various benefits; are to be paid. It had been the practice to do no more than pay the required amount of interest and match the contributions of the employees for current service from 1924 until the vote of $75 million a year ago.
The actuarial report states quite clearly that the deficit is caused almost entirely by two main factors. The first arose from the fact

Supply-Finance
that the government matched only the contributions of employees for their current 'service and not those made for their prior service. Government contributions should be made for both types to cover the full liability. Secondly, the contribution rates are calculated on the basis of a normal progression up the established salary scales so that when there is [DOT]a general salary increase the contributions already made are actually inadequate relative to the larger pension which will be received and the over-all liability is increased. Up to the present no payment has been made ,in respect of such an increase.
These factors were responsible for the estimated deficit of $53 million at March 31, 1933, which I mentioned in my statement a year ago. Unfortunately the government of the day felt itself unable to take steps to correct the situation and the matter was allowed to run on until the war came. Then early in 1947 with the first amendment of the act after the war the situation was reviewed and was felt to be so changed that the department of insurance was asked to make preparations for this new valuation which is based on data at the end of that year.
It will be apparent from their report that these factors which I have mentioned have operated with increasing intensity since the end of the war. There has recently been a large increase in unmatched contributions in respect of prior service and several increases in the general level of salaries. Although contribution rates were raised in 1939 new benefits have been introduced1 and retired civil servants are living longer. The combination of all these factors has been to greatly increase the deficit of 1933.
We propose to continue the policy initiated by the vote of $75 million a year ago and to wipe out the accumulated deficit over a reasonable period. Vote 586 of these supplementary estimates constitutes an additional appropriation of the same amount for the same purpose.
Secondly, I am proposing to show on our government balance sheet the full estimated actuarial liability of the superannuation fund at the end of each fiscal year, with an appropriate offset for the deficit which still exists. It is also proposed to credit to the account each year in future an amount equal to interest reckoned at the same four per cent rate as in the past but calculated on the amount of the full actuarial liability; this will prevent the present deficit from growing owing to a loss of interest.
Thirdly, in vote 584 for $4,943,977 the government is taking the first step in a policy
tMr. Abbott.]
it proposes of matching not only the contributions made by contributors for current service but also for prior service.
Further, the government proposes to make a special contribution to the account of an amount estimated by the department of insurance to be equal to the additional net liability created by any general salary increase. The actuarial cost to the account of the general salary increases effective December 1, 1951, is estimated at $23 million and vote 585 is proposed to cover that cost.
Before concluding this explanation, I might point out to hon. members the ultimate purpose behind these major appropriations. Our pension plan with its various benefits is an integral and essential part of the pay that is provided for civil servants. It is taken into account in establishing salary rates and other conditions of employment. It is, I think, wholly fitting that part of the remuneration of persons in the public service should take this form, because the security that a pension plan provides helps to ensure that independence and stability which is so important in the public service. To many of those in it, the public service cannot offer financial rewards on the scale that they could secure in commercial, industrial, or professional life; rather it offers that interest and satisfaction which arise from the nature of the work and the purposes to which it is directed. If we are to expect many of the persons in the public service to carry on under these circumstances we must, I think, provide them with reasonable security for their old age or disability so that they can to that degree disregard the necessity for seeking immediate financial gains. The appropriations which we are proposing are intended to bring fully into focus these accumulated and accruing obligations, in order that the full cost of carrying on the busines of government will be revealed in our appropriations and accounts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it from what the minister has said that the deficits he is talking about are actuarial deficits.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, not only is the consolidated revenue fund never out of money-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you extending an invitation to us?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; the size of the surplus has decreased so rapidly-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is also true to say, is it not, that the superannuation fund has never

been currently in the red? It has always had enough money in it to pay each year's pensions. In other words, it is just an actuarial deficit that the votes mentioned by the minister are intended to correct, so that the balance sheet of the superannuation fund and the government's over-all balance sheets will give us a clear picture.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we all agree that the picture should be put as clear as possible. I also want to commend the minister and the government for their interest in superannuation matters. I have often said, in other connections, and I say it now, I feel that the government should be a model employer, and that they should include in their working arrangements reasonable provisions for retirement of their employees. I hope that when the minister brings in his amendments to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which were forecast in the speech from the throne, to which he referred now, he will give some consideration to the position of temporaries who are not yet permanent civil servants. I take it that some attention is being given to their position, in the light of what the minister has said, when he told us that the plan is, starting from the time of the new amendments, to match prior contributions made by employees with the government's contribution. I hope he will give some attention to the plight that these people face in that they are employed many years as temporaries, and then when they achieve permanency they have such large sums to pay back.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is one of the problems being looked at now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope it will be gone into, because it is a pretty important matter. Now, if I tell the minister that there is one other aspect of this matter I wish to say a few word about, he will be able to guess it in one guess. I still feel that the federal government has a responsibility to look at the situation of its retired civil servants who are now on pension, particularly those in the lower brackets. I need not give the figures; I have given them often; they are on Hansard for this session in answer to questions of mine on the order paper not many days ago. But it is still true, despite all of the loyalty to the idea of adequate pensions for retired civil servants that the minister has just mentioned, that there are many hundreds now retired on pensions of $20, $25, $30, $35 a month. I feel that the government could do something to improve their position. Other employers-I admit not
Supply-Finance
many, but some, at any rate-of persons already retired have found ways in which to augment those pensions at least to some extent. I admit that the cases I can cite are not many, but there are some. I mention in particular the fact that this course is followed in the United Kingdom. There is a statute over there which has been on the books for about a decade which does provide for pension increases in the case of those who are already retired.
The minister and I need not argue this back and forth at length, because he will say I am making the same speech I have made many times before. But if he answers it I will say that he is giving the same answer. Can we not get out of this circle and start to solve this problem? The hon. member for Kamloops suggested that the minister make my speech and I give his answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is asking too much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will not do that. But this thought has occurred to me. The minister told us that these civil service superannuation matters have been studied quite exhaustively by the actuarial and insurance people of the Department of Finance. I wonder if we could not have the same people at least make an estimate as to what it would cost, how much we would have to put into the fund- and it would be a lot smaller than the sum we are putting in to achieve this actuarial balance-how much would have to be put into the fund so as to establish a floor for retired civil servants below which pensions would not be allowed to fall, some floor which would result in these $20, $25, $30 and $40 pensions being brought up to some reasonable minimum amount. I would like to ask for a higher figure, and I believe those in brackets higher than the ones I have named deserve a supplement, but certainly it would mean a great deal to those in the lower brackets if they could be brought up to a floor of not less than $40 or $50 a month for all retired civil servants.
As I say, maybe the figure should be higher, and I hope the minister will look into the matter fully, but it would mean a lot to those who are in the lower brackets to have something done soon. In parliament we have been called upon to vote these rather substantial sums. I realize that they are just bookkeeping entries in a sense, but the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings has been noting while the minister has been talking-and I am sure he will not mind my saying this- that it seems to come in very handy to have these bookkeeping deficits to cover at a time when the minister has a large surplus. They

Supply-Finance
may be only bookkeeping entries in one sense; still, they will whittle down that surplus that the minister has. In that sense they are real. We are detracting from a real sum of dollars that was there as a surplus. If we can do that for these bookkeeping purposes I suggest that we can do it for the retired civil servants who are in the lower brackets.
I am going to remind the minister of one of the arguments that has been used against me on occasion when I have raised this question. I cannot remember for certain whether it was the minister that used it or whether it was one of the hon. members from Ottawa. But it has been said to me at times that the difficulty is that some of these people who are on these lower pensions owe their condition to the days of the Bennett regime. It stems, we are told, from the days when civil servants' incomes were low. Well, the minister said today that the Bennett government unfortunately was unable to do such and such- back when it was in power, and he is now seeking to correct that error. Well, if he is seeking to correct one error of those days, as he calls it, I suggest that he might correct this one as well; that if any of these pensions are so low because of the low salaries that these people had in the early thirties, then this present government owes it to these people to try to improve their position. I know I am not going to get the minister to say yes by these few minutes of argument here today, but will he meet my request that he have his people make an estimate as to how much money would have to be put into the fund on an actuarial basis to establish a reasonable floor for pensions for those who are now retired?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will give consideration to my hon. friend's suggestion and of course, as he indicated, we will have an opportunity to discuss this whole question very fully-I am sure we will discuss it very fully-when I bring in the amendments to the superannuation act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that. That is the reason I gave the minister notice today.


Douglas Charles Abbott: With respect to the other point he raised, it is perfectly true, as he pointed out, in one sense it is a bookkeeping entry, and it is perfectly true that it is in fact the appropriation of the money that is available in the surplus to make it. I was not expressing any criticism of the previous government of 1933, but they were not able at that time to start filling up the holes in the superannuation fund, because of economic conditions at that time. Revenues were very low. As I said in my statement, prior to the outbreak of the war it had not been possible

to do anything about it; but now, through good luck or good management, the fiscal affairs of the country are in better shape than they have been for a long time, and we are ready to make some provision for matters and we are starting to do so.


Mr. Gibson:: Is it not true that, no matter what surplus the Minister of Finance announces on April 8, eventually it will actually be $210 million less than the surplus he mentions because, after all, this is a liability that we have that we must accept?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think in a way, yes. I imagine this is what my hon. friend means, that we should accurately reflect in our public accounts our outstanding liabilities, and this is unquestionably a liability. The credit of Canada is good, and these pensions are going to be paid; but, as I said in my statement, we are going to show this now in our public accounts, the full actuarial liability, with a proper offset for any deficit that may exist, and we are going to pay interest, credit the fund with interest at the four per cent rate on the full amount of that liability, and in future we are going to see that the fund is kept currently actuarially sound, both with respect to contributions for prior employees and for any additions that may be required as a result of increases in salary scales.
At six o'clock Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 11, for the relief of Dorothy Minnie Hogbin Neale.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question on this bill, which was letter F in the other place, may I point out that the evidence in connection with this case has not yet been distributed. Because of that I feel the house should not be asked to go ahead with the bill; and if it is asked to go ahead with it, and Your Honour rules that that is proper, I feel the house should accept a motion to adjourn the debate on the second reading of the bill.
I should like to point out in this connection that the question as to whether or not a bill of this kind should be proceeded with in the absence of evidence came up on several occasions last year. I would draw the attention

of the house to Hansard for June 5, 1951, page 3748, at which point the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), for the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler), moved the second reading of Bill No. 332 of that session.
The next notation in Hansard records my objecting to proceeding with the bill, on two grounds: One was that I knew it was contested and then, to quote from Hansard-
The second is that the evidence in this case has not yet reached us. Therefore I would ask that it stand.
Hansard then records the following:


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: If the evidence has not been distributed I do not see how we can proceed with the bill. Bill No. 332 will stand.
I would point out further that on three or four occasions after that, that practice was followed, and with fewer words than on the occasion I have just indicated. In fact, on all subsequent occasions in the first session of 1951 when I asked that a divorce bill stand on second reading because we did not have the evidence, Hansard records Mr. Speaker as saying, "Stand."
I realize that there is no rule in the book, no standing order, that would prevent the hon. member for Lisgar from going ahead with these bills in the absence of the evidence, if he insists on doing so; but it does seem to me that the position taken by Your Honour on June 5, 1951, is one that the hon. member for Lisgar should respect. I would remind him, as Your Honour said on that occasion, that if the evidence has not been distributed-and it will be noted that the reference was not to the receipt of one copy from the other place, not to its being tabled, but rather to the fact of its not having been distributed-Your Honour did not see how we could proceed with it.
Just a few moments ago I checked and learned that the evidence in connection with Bill No. 11 has not been distributed. There are six bills scattered through the long list of bills on the order paper tonight-and the list totals some fifty of them for second reading-in respect of which the evidence has been distributed. I have taken the trouble to read it in each case, and would be prepared to pass judgment on those cases tonight, if we reach them.
I feel however that in a case such as the one before us, where the evidence has not been distributed and has not been placed in the hands of hon. members, we should not proceed with the bill at this time.
Private Bills-Divorce
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), that the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 11 be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion may I say that if I did not allow the bill to be proceeded with in June of last year I must have been under the impression that the evidence had not been tabled. If the evidence has been tabled it is before the house, and I am powerless to prevent the house from proceeding with the bill.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Knowles) which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Argue	Jones
Aylesworth	Knight
Beyerstein	Knowles
Black (Cumberland)	Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Blackmore	McLure
Bryce	Nickle
Catherwood	Noseworthy
Charlton	Pearkes
Churchill	Quelch
Coldwell	Ross (Souris)
Fair	Shaw
Fairclough, Mrs.	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Fulton	Thatcher
Gagnon	White (Middlesex East)
Herridge Higgins	Wright-31.
 NAYS Messrs:
Abbott	Larson
Anderson	Macdonald (Edmonton
Applewhaite	East)
Bater	MacDougall
Bradley	MacKenzie
Byrne	MacLean (Cape Breton
Carter	North and Victoria)
Dewar	MacNaught
Eyre	McCulloch
Ferrie	Mclvor
Fulford	McWilliam
Garland	Mayhew
George	Murray (Cariboo)
Goode	Prudham
Gregg	Sinclair
Harkness	Smith (Moose Mountain)
Harrison	Stick
Helme	Studer
Hetland	Ward
Howe	Weaver
Huffman	Weir
Kickham	Welboum
Kirk (Antigonish-	Whiteside
Guysborough)	Winkler
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Winters	
Laing	Wood-49.


George Alexander Cruickshank: hon. member for (Mr. Tustin).
I was paired with the Prince Edward-Lennox


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I feel that I cannot support this motion owing to the lack of evidence. If the evidence had been before the house, and if I had had an opportunity of reading it, I might have

Private Bills-Divorce
changed that decision. If we pass this bill tonight, what we are doing is to concur in a man having been proven guilty of a charge of adultery without any evidence of whether or not he was guilty. For that reason, I cannot support the bill.


Mr. Johnston:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was paired with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin).


Victor Quelch: I was paired with the member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Dickey:: I was paired with the member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan).


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired, and had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: This bill will be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



DOROTHY AILSIE JEAN COGHLIN HANDS

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 12, for the relief of Dorothy Ailsie Jean Coghlin Hands.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: It is
well known, Mr. Speaker, that I am just as sincere in my opposition to divorce as any man in this house, but I think that this is a discredit to the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We have a committee of the other place which is just as efficient and just as intelligent as any in this house, and it investigates the court action. I feel that our action now is a condemnation of the investigation carried on by the Senate committee. I feel that the country could be better served if we tried, inside the house and outside of it, to kill the thing that causes divorce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Evidently the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) feels a little uneasy and feels he has to make some statement. I should like to ask him what right he has to criticize people who are not prepared to pass on subjects when the evidence has not been submitted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) noted that one of his remarks was greeted with enthusiastic applause from all sections of the house. I have no doubt it was greeted with applause by members of his own party just because they are of his own party, but on this side of the house we agree to the full with his statement that this whole business is a farce and a discredit to parliament, and in my view we should get rid of it just as soon as we possibly can. I submit that what I have been trying to do with respect to these bills, namely to have them deferred until we get the evidence, is no reflection of any kind on the other place or upon the members of the committee in the other place. I have no doubt that with respect to Bill No. 12, which was letter G of the Senate, the members of the Senate committee went into it fully. But in this House of Commons we were not eleoted by the people of Canada to be a rubber stamp. We were not sent here to take without looking at it any matter that

is laid before us. I think it is our responsibility to have in our hands, even if some members do not want to read it, the evidence in connection with this case and with the other cases before we go ahead with them.
1 dislike voting on these divorce cases one way or the other. As some hon. members are suggesting, once these people have paid their fees and have gone through the routine that is required, they have a certain right. But I submit that they also have the right to have this sort of matter dealt with somewhere else than in parliament. I feel that we have got to face up to that fact just as soon as possible. For the moment, however, that question is not before us, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that we must deal with the bill that is in our hands. What we have now before us is Bill No. 12, an act for the relief of a certain person. I submit that, with no evidence and no information about this case other than the name of the petitioner and the name of the person against whom the charge of adultery is made, we should wait until we have the evidence. Believing that it is the responsible thing for a member of this house to do in this circumstance, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), that the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 12 be now adjourned.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Private Bills-Divorce
Higgins	Pearkes
Jones	Ross (Souris)
Knight	Shaw
Knowles	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Macdonnell (Greenwood) Thatcher
McLure Nickle Noseworthy
White (Middlesex East) Wright-29.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Abbott
Anderson
Applewhaite
Bater
Bradley
Carter
Cavers
Decore
Dewar
Eyre
Ferrie
Fulford
Garland
George
Gibson
Goode
Gregg
Harkness
Harrison
Helme
Hetland
Howe
Huffman
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Larson
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught McCulloch Mclvor McWilliam Mayhew
Murray (Cariboo)
Prudham
Robinson
Sinclair
Stick
Studer
Ward
Weaver
Weir
Welboum Whiteside Winkler Winters Wood-50.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin).


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the "nays" have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for second reading of the bill?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I find that I must oppose this bill also. Since a man must be considered innocent until he is proved guilty, I cannot allow this bill to pass without registering opposition. We have no evidence. The first bill in this list as to which we have the evidence is Bill No. 13. The bill now before us is Bill No. 12. I am opposed to the motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.

Private Bills-Divorce


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: "nay".	Those opposed will say


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: have it.	In my opinion the "yeas"
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The house divided on the motion (Mr.	
Winkler) which lowing division:	was agreed ito on the fol-
 YEAS Messrs:
Anderson	Macdonald (Edmonton
Applewhaite	East)
Bater	MacDougall
Bradley	MacKenzie
Brooks	MacLean (Cape Breton
Carter	North and Victoria)
Cavers	MacNaught
Decore	McCulloch
Dewar	Mclvor
Eyre	McWilliam
Ferrie	May hew
Fulford	Murray (Cariboo)
Garland	Prudham
George	Robinson
Gibson	Sinclair
Goode	Stick
Gregg	Stuart (Charlotte)
Harkness	Studer
Harrison	Ward
Helme	Weaver
Hetland	Weir
Huffman	Welboum
Kickham	Whiteside
Kirk (Antigonish-	Winkler
Guysborough)	Winters
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Wood-50. Larson
 NAYS Messrs:	
Aylesworth	Herridge
Beaudoin	Higgins
Beyerstein	Jones
Black (Cumberland) Knight	
Blackmore	Knowles
Bryce	Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Catherwood	McLure
Charlton	Nickle
Churchill	Noseworthy
Coldwell	Pearkes
Dion	Ross (Souris)
Fair	Shaw
Fairclough, Mrs.	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Fournier (Hull)	Thatcher
Fulton	White (Middlesex East)
Gagnon	Wright-32.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was paired with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin).


Victor Quelch: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



JOHN HELLMAN

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 13, for the relief of John Heilman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this is the first of the bills on the order paper tonight in connection with which we have received the evidence. It has been distributed and is in the hands of hon. members. I have taken the trouble to read it. There are very unhappy elements in this story. The feature of it that seems most unfortunate is that this couple did live together nineteen years; but the circumstances are such that I feel the members of the Senate committee were justified in recommending the divorce. Regardless of what others may feel about it, in this case I will vote for the bill.


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


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: On division.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



MYRTLE JESSE MARIE GANGIN DIT GILMORE COONEY

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 14, for the relief of Myrtle Jesse Marie Gangi'n dit Gilmore Cooney.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This bill is one in regard to which the evidence has been distributed. The Senate committee which studied it apparently went carefully into the case. There are four children involved in this particular divorce, and perhaps that is the sadness of the occasion. It is too, I notice, a mixed marriage. It is interesting to note that of the five cases in respect to which the evidence has been distributed, on looking at the religious denominations in each particular case, I found an amazing situation. Five different religious denominations were represented. I merely make that remark in passing.

I do want to say that in this particular case I think a divorce is justified. There is one thing I want to add. Of these five cases, there were four in which the investigator who investigated the case-I mean the professional investigator-found it necessary to lie in order to obtain the evidence.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: 1 think that is something that should be brought to the attention of the house as showing the manner in which the evidence in these cases is procured. In this particular case you will find that at page 10 of the book of evidence the investigator said that he went to a certain room to see this man, to accost him with his crime. He said: "I told him I was the watchman and there was smoke coming out of the room."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There is a proverb which says that there can be no smoke without fire. I think this is the exception which proves the rule. Of the other cases, the evidence of which I have read or waded through, I found that according to the evidence of four out of five cases the investigator has lied in order to prove his case. These are the same people upon whose evidence under oath these marriages are broken up. I want to say right here that if a man does not tell the truth when he is not under oath I do not believe him whether he takes an oath or whether he does not. I think the manner of doing this sort of thing is shameful. However, sir, I do not want to talk the bill out. I have already said this is a case in which I think there is a reasonable claim for divorce. I am not opposing it.


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


Alphonse Fournier: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



HILDA RICHARDSON TAIT

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 15, for the relief of Hilda Richardson Tait.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 15, unlike the last two that we have had before us, is another one in connection with which we have not yet received the evidence. Therefore I feel, as I did with respect to the first two that we had tonight, and as I felt with respect to the one we had the other night, namely, that we should not proceed with it on this occasion. I would not think of moving the adjournment of the debate at two
Supply-Finance
minutes to nine o'clock, because if there were objection to such a motion it would mean the necessity of taking a vote, which would take ten or fifteen minutes off the consideration of the supplementary estimates. If, however, the house is willing to accept such a motion and let it be carried then of course I would be prepared to make it.


Some hon. Members:: Nothing doing.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear voices say "nothing doing" and others say "nine o'clock". May I point out that all we know about this case is that it is the wife who is seeking the divorce. Her initials are H. R. T. She lives in the city of Montreal, and it is one D. C. T., the husband, from whom she is seeking the divorce.


Mr. Speaker:: Nine o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I move the adjournment of the debate.


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

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



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
584. To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current and arrears payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year- further amount required, $4,943,977.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, before six o'clock we had an interesting statement from the Minister of Finance as to the nature and purpose of this vote. The fact had emerged that the intention of the government is to place the civil service superannuation fund on an up-to-date actuarial basis. But there was one thing which I do not think had been established clearly, and therefore I should like to ask the minister whether I am correct in my understanding that although this is, in the sense in which he explained it, a bookkeeping transaction, the effect nevertheless will be that when he gives us his completed statement of revenues and expenditures at the time he presents his budget the net surplus will have been reduced by the total of $102,943,977, as a result of votes 584, 585 and 586; so that that reduction will be reflected when he presents his official report on the surplus.

Supply-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is quite correct. My budgetary surplus, if any, which I shall report at the end of the fiscal year, will be $102,943,977 less than it would otherwise be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, Mr. Chairman, is it also correct that, notwithstanding the fact that, on paper, this sum of $102 million has been transferred from what I understand would otherwise be the budgetary surplus, to the civil service superannuation account, nevertheless that amount still remains in the consolidated revenue fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The superannuation account, as my hon. friend is doubtless aware, is an account in the consolidated revenue fund; and this is one of the items. There are no securities or investments held against the superannuation funds. It is an account in the consolidated revenue fund. And, as I have had occasion to explain on a number of occasions, this is one of the non-cash items in budgetary income and outgo. There are others of the same kind. There are cash receipts, on the other hand, which are not budgetary receipts, and the cash represented by the revenues have, of course, been used in part in the way I outlined in the radio speech to which the hon. member for Greenwood has referred.
There is no mystery about it. I never attempted to place it before the house in any other way. This is a perfectly well-known budgetary charge, in the same way that there are others of a similar type.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope the minister will understand that I am not suggesting that the books will not reflect proper entries, or that there has been any attempt to mislead the house and country. But it is important to establish the facts of the case. I should like, then, arising out of the previous two questions and answers, to ask the minister if I am correct in understanding that, as he himself has said in the radio speech to which he made reference earlier, in which he described ways in which the budgetary surplus would be used- that the budgetary surplus could be used for certain things such as the retirement of debt -am I correct in thinking that the actual cash on hand could be used for the retirement of debt, to the full extent of the budgetary surplus, and yet leave leeway for the transfer of this amount, which is not cash but merely a paper figure, from the unappropriated total in the consolidated revenue fund to the civil service superannuation fund?
So that there will be no suggestion that I am trying to twist words or trying to lay a trap-I am not very good at laying traps- what I am getting at is this; Is it possible that this entry, although the cash is paid out

in retirement of debt, can, as it were, be used twice, and a paper entry still be made so as to show a payment into the civil service superannuation fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it cannot be used twice, any more than cash can be used twice. Cash is taken in as the result of receipts from taxes, from non-tax revenue, and other sources- interest on investments, and so on. And that cash is used for the purposes approved by parliament, including the redemption of debt.
If it seems in the public interest to use surplus cash to reduce either short-term or long-term debt, the debit entry, the budgetary debit, which will result from the item we are now discussing will be a charge to the budgetary revenue account and will be credited to the superannuation account.
As I said, and as my hon. friend has said, no cash changes hands in that entry, and the resulting cash may be used, as I have said, in the manner outlined in my radio speech. The obligation remains there to pay as and when these pensions become due as a result of claims of civil servants. It is a perfectly common, ordinary, everyday sort of transaction. There is nothing mysterious about it at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, there is nothing mysterious about it; but the effect of it is that, although he is able to show that the budgetary surplus has been reduced by the amount of this appropriation, nevertheless that much in cash has been available and may already have been used, according to the minister's radio speech, to retire debt. The cash there has been used to retire debt, but here is a paper entry of another $102 million. It seems to me that somehow or another in one case we have used money for one purpose and then, on paper, made a book entry, which does not mean we are using the money again, but that the same amount is used for the purposes of the book entry. And, in effect, it is being used-or the same figure is being used-twice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I am not an accountant, although in the course of my professional experience I used to have a good deal to do with figures. I have tried to make the situation clear. I said time and again in my budget speech of last year that the budgetary surplus had no direct relationship to cash surplus; and it may well be-in fact it frequently would be the case-that a fairly substantial budgetary surplus might mean that we would be running at the same time a cash deficit, because of other non-budgetary obligations.
Now, I always make perfectly clear in my annual budget speech how the full intake of

revenue has been used, and the extent to which it has been used for non-budgetary items. And I always bring into account nonbudgetary receipts. It is in accordance with well recognized and well understood accounting balance-sheet practices. I am afraid I cannot elaborate upon it further.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I must admit, as a private member, that I was rather surprised to see this staggering figure placed before us.
I have one or two suggestions to make to the Minister of Finance. If I understood correctly, civil servants have the option of retiring any time after reaching the age of sixty. They must retire-they are compelled to retire-upon reaching the age of sixty-five. Any figures I have seen would seem to indicate that most of them wait until that time. Therefore I would assume that they would prefer not to retire when they reach the age of sixty-five, or would like to wait until they are older.
I am going to suggest to the minister and the committee that this policy, which has been accepted by the government and parliament, of retiring civil servants at sixty-five has become outdated and outmoded. I think it is financially unsound, and for several reasons. In the first place I do not think most civil servants like this idea of being retired compulsorily because, after all, with the cost of living as it is, even if they want to retire they find it difficult to live on their pensions.
In the second place I think that retiring civil servants at the age of sixty-five is harming the production of the country. After all, when we are in the midst of a defence effort, I do not see how we can have men at the top dropping out of the civil service. Men who have reached the age of sixty-five have experience which makes them most valuable.
In the third place I think the policy is ill-advised because it is costing the taxpayers an unnecessary amount of money. They are being forced to pay for retirement pensions of civil servants who are rendered unproductive, usually through no fault of their own.
Therefore I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to changing the Civil Service Act so that the civil servant might not have to retire. If a civil servant wishes to retire, all right; but if he wishes to continue working he should be allowed to continue to work until reaching the age of perhaps sixty-eight. I think everyone would benefit from this arrangement-the civil servant, the country as a whole, and certainly the taxpayer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member. I
Supply-Finance
do not know whether he was in the house this afternoon when I mentioned that we are bringing in the Civil Service Superannuation Act for complete revision at this session. It is hoped that general observations relating to superannuation, and benefits of that sort, might be made at that time-and perhaps more properly then.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon, member for Moose Jaw, because I believe I have roughly the same thought. It seems to me that there are two points involved. First of all I noticed from reading the minister's memorandum that a certain number of people-I do not know how many- are retiring at sixty. That seems to me very undesirable, except in special cases. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw has said, it costs a lot of money. The minister shakes his head -well, perhaps he will explain in some further detail. I should have thought that, in the same way as stopping people from working at sixty-five as against a later age would cost the public money, stopping them before sixty-five would cost money, too.
I would add one further word to what the hon. member for Moose Jaw has said, and it is this: It seems to me the practical way of approaching the matter might be to have the age of sixty-five as the more or less normal retiring age, but to allow the heads of departments to recommend that, in proper cases, they might remain longer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the case now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. Every week we have
extensions beyond sixty-five.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Up to what age?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no deadline. There has to be a certificate that they are essential for the purpose of the service.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then, just
one or two other points. As I listened to the minister referring to our deficit in 1947 of $251 million, and of $312 million at the end of 1951, as against actuarial perfection it seems to me that we are like people on a treadmill-running as fast as we can, but the treadmill is working faster, and we are actually losing ground, even though we have transferred an amount of money to try to keep up the actuarial position. The point of age has been dealt with and that to me is a most important matter. As the minister says the whole thing will be reviewed in the near future, I think this is all I have to say.

Supply-Finance


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask some questions with reference to these three votes. With the huge surplus the minister has I think he could have worked in something for those underprivileged people who have to live on retirement allowances of some $25 per month. Now that the funds are available the minister has a real opportunity to give these people at least a cost of living bonus. Many civil servants have been retired on allowances of $29, $39 and $79 a month.
This question has been up a dozen times. While I have no objection to civil servants getting an increase, I am thinking of the man who has been in the civil service and is retired. There is in my riding one man who was in the service for thirty years. When he retired he was getting a salary of $2,000, having started at a salary of about $1,000. The man who succeeded him started off where he left off, but the man who has retired must try to live on $29, $39, or whatever he is getting.
We know the cost of living has gone up 100 per cent, and in fact this man is really getting only $14 a month as a retirement allowance. Surely with these large surpluses, surely with the desire to hide this surplus so that it will not look too large to the hungry people, there is an opportunity to look after these people who have retired from the railway, from the postal service or other departments of government.
A great many people have been harping on this question during the last four years. Surely this class is not going to be left unprotected. Many of these people have had to use what little savings they had in order to live, and some of them have had to sell their properties. It is most unjust that no consideration is being given to them. I appeal to the Minister of Finance and the cabinet around him to give consideration to these people who have been forced to retire on these small allowances.
There is every reason for granting them an increase. Civil servants still in the service have received three or four increases, which they deserved, because the cost of living has gone up. But these people have no power behind them and they cannot get anything. If they were still employed at low wages they could go out on strike. But the government considers they have not much influence and therefore they will do nothing for them.
I appeal to the minister that he use some of this huge surplus for this purpose. Surely these people should be given enough to live on without having to go to the poorhouse or ask for assistance from the community chests.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about these large sums of money which the taxpayer is being compelled to pay. This is not all due to increases in superannuation; much of it is due to the fact that members of parliament, or at least a large number of them, are always calling for some sop to the public. This government continues to pass out these sops which in my opinion are absolutely unnecessary on many occasions in order to mollycoddle the public more than they have been mollycoddled ever before in the history of Canada. The result is that they have to increase the number of civil servants.
The result is that the taxpayer is going to be called upon to pay all these different items and the poor old pensioners cannot get a liveable allowance from this government. As the previous speaker said, they cannot go on strike and they get nothing. It is pretty nearly time that this government, supported by the opposition, put its foot down and said, "No more expansion of the civil service in order to give the Canadian people a lot of things they are not entitled to." They get all these things and then they will not pay for them without growling. We should stop this.
Like every member, I get these notices all the time advertising positions of $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000. They are all new appointments. They represent an expansion in the civil service. I am all for giving the men who are doing a necessary job in running the affairs of this country a liveable wage, I am all for giving the retired pensioner an increase, but I am against this government continuing to employ people in order to satisfy the whims of hon. members, myself included. I would be glad to hear about this when the government denies me some things I am not entitled to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the house rose at six o'clock the minister and I were discussing this matter and I do not intend to pursue it at any length just now. But I would like to remind him of some figures in connection with this problem which I think underline its urgency. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Queens stress the need of something being done for this class of people right away.
An answer to a set of questions which I had asked is reported on page 583 of Hansard of March 19. It indicates that there are 371 retired civil servants receiving pensions of less than $20 per month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those are probably the ones with very short service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the same answer the minister gave last time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has no less validity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is still less than $20 per month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They might well have other sources of income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is still too little to live on if that is all they have. There are 1,616 whose pensions are less than $40 per month. Similarly there are 877 widows of retired civil servants whose pensions are less than $20 per month, and 2,527 widows whose pensions are less than $40 per month. As the hon. member for Queens has said, this matter has been raised a dozen times or more in the last few years and I hope that when the minister is giving consideration to this whole problem, as indicated by the announcement that the Civil Service Superannuation Act is to be amended, he will not overlook the plight of these civil servants who are already retired.


Mr. Blackmore:: I believe hon. members who have thus far discussed this particular matter have done the job very well, and I merely wish to associate myself with them in the stand they have taken. First of all, I want to say that we should not necessarily retire people at the age of 65 years. I believe the time of retirement should depend upon a man's physical fitness and his ability to do the job.
I certainly resent the fact that so many of our superannuated civil servants have such low incomes. It is a shabby way in which to deal with those who have spent their lives, or a large part of their lives, in the service of the state. I want the minister to know that when the time comes to revise the act he will have the support of the Social Credit group if he wants to be more generous to civil servants who are retired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a question I should like to ask the minister along the lines of my earlier inquiries. I will discuss only item 586 because apparently that will be the recurring item. It was the same figure last year; it is $75 million this year, and it may be more next year, but I imagine it will be in the order of $75 million until actuarially-


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may interrupt my learned friend, the statement I made this afternoon was that as it was reasonable to do so, we would reduce the deficit. I am speaking from memory, but after this $75 million is applied it will be something in the order of $212 million. In addition to that, we will keep the fund strictly current from now on. It may be $25 million next year or it may be $50 million.
Supply-Finance


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring only to that portion which is to be appropriated from time to time to make up for the previous actuarial deficit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister whether the amount for this year, $75 million, is an amount which he and his advisers take into consideration as being an item in the estimates and to be included in the total expenditures for the year, or rather the anticipated expenditures for next year, for which he has to budget and which is accordingly reflected when he strikes his tax rate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I think that some provision should be made for it. Speaking personally now, as Minister of Finance, I think that substantial amounts such as $75 million applied in reduction of an actuarial deficit should be made when revenues are relatively buoyant, as was the case this year when revenues have been appreciably higher than we had expected. I do not think it would be reasonable to expect that we should impose additional taxes in order to fill this hole too rapidly, if I may so describe it. That would represent my attitude, but I do not know what attitude some other minister of finance might have. It seems to me that is a fair and reasonable way in which to approach it.
As I indicated, we propose to credit the account with interest on the full amount of the actuarial liabilities so that we will, in effect, be crediting the superannuation account with interest on the $212 million which will not yet have been paid in.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not trying to start a discussion as to how much we should budget for each year for this purpose. I am interested in finding that whatever amount is to be paid in is included in the actual sums for which the minister budgets, and on the basis of which the tax rates are set. That is what I think should be questioned because, as the minister has said, this is a book entry. It is a transfer from the budgetary surplus into the civil service superannuation fund, but no cash goes in there.
Now, I am unable to understand-I do not want to prolong this discussion for it may be simply that I do not understand accounting, but I shall make the observation now, and when there is not the pressure of time, I shall follow it up-I am unable to understand why we should tax ourselves to raise the money when apparently no cash transfer is involved. It seems to me we are taxing ourselves to raise the same money twice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I appreciate my hon. friend's co-operation in saying that we can discuss it

Supply-Finance
in more detail later, perhaps when the superannuation act is before us. Before we do that, I would suggest to him that perhaps he might find it helpful if he were to examine the explanation in the earlier part of the public accounts of just this sort of thing, the difference between budgetary and cash charges. There is quite a good elaboration in there under the heading of the superannuation account.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is one thing which the minister said which I should like explained. He spoke about keeping the accounts strictly current from now on. On page 6, the report the minister tabled says that there is no provision in these rates for future increases in the general level of salaries. Is that consistent with what the minister said about keeping it strictly current?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think so. I am not an actuary, of course, but I am told that the present rate of 6 per cent for men, with a matching contribution by the government and a contribution by the government for past services if the civil servant is entitled to pay in his share and claim that, will keep the account current, provided each time there is an increase in salary the government puts in a contribution which will bring it in line. That is what the $23 million is here to cover, the actuarial liability for the increase in salaries which we granted last December.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I suggest that we revert to item 563, as I see the Minister of Agriculture is here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, if it meets with your approval, that we continue with these estimates. We may have some little discussion on that item, and there are a great many items that are urgent. I think now we shall have to continue through the estimates, and I hope to come back to agriculture.
Miscellaneous grants-
5S7. Contribution towards the national women's organization program in connection with the prosecution of a thrift campaign, not to exceed $10,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The National Council of
Women and the Canadian Association of Consumers last year put on a campaign to encourage thrift. I must say that in view of the increase in savings, whether it is due to the campaign the ladies put on, it has been most successful. In the last nine months the rate of savings in Canada has nearly doubled. Whatever may have been the reason, I am sure the ladies' campaign contributed to it. They approached me, through the Bank of Canada I may say, and

asked whether the government would be prepared to make some contribution to assist in the printing of a booklet, the travelling expenses which some of them had, and so on. I took it up with my colleagues and we agreed that we should pay up to $10,000 which was appropriated out of the vote for unforeseen contingencies.
In order that the house may have an opportunity of asking me about it, I put an item in here to reimburse that account.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I had a letter the other day from a church in my riding asking for a page in a cookbook which was to cost $15. I am going to advise them to apply to the Bank of Canada, because they are pikers asking $15 for a whole page. Here we are growling about taxes and we have to pay $10,000 to tell people how to save.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: 1 am inclined to agree with the member who has just spoken. I think those expenditures are in the category of luxury spending. I feel that grants of this kind should be cut out in the coming year. It is one way in which we could cut down. After all, I suppose there will be a $5 billion budget, and the minister is always asking about ways in which we can cut his expenditures. Here is one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wish that I could get some suggestions for savings in really substantial amounts. I have high admiration for the work that is done by the National Council of Women and the Canadian Association of Consumers. They are very representative organizations of women. We make grants to many worthy things. When the executive of this organization came to me, it seemed a reasonable thing to assist this worth-while work to that extent. If all the grants were as well spent as that, I would not be too worried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister say
whether there have been contributions to either of these organizations in the past, and could he say whether it is intended to repeat this contribution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, this is once and for all. The ladies decided that here was a great chance to help fight inflation by encouraging saving. They asked the government for $10,000 to assist them in their travelling expenses and so on. So far as I am aware, it is one of those non-recurring things.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not the case that there was a grant of about $15,000-I am just speaking from memory-to the Canadian Association of Consumers three or four years ago?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There has been an annual grant to the Canadian Association of Consumers, but that is for their regular, annual operation and has nothing to do with the program to encourage saving. It wets to encourage efficient ways of consuming, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the amount of that annual grant?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is in the estimates. I have not got it here. I think it is either $10,000 or $12,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I take it from what has been said that there is nothing else contributed to the national women's association during 1951?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 1 would not say that from memory. All I can tell the hon. member is that this is a special contribution to this special campaign put on by these two women's organizations. I would have to look at the estimates. I think we make a grant to the Girl Guides Association and to some other things.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The general opinion of this association, and it has been borne out here tonight, is that it is doing a great advertising job for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance says that it is a wonderful organization, and doing great work. It has been doing a great advertising job for him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh no.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps he needs it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is really good propaganda for him, and the whole government is benefiting by it. I do not say it is a straight Liberal organization, but I do say that before any moneys are voted for it it should be thoroughly investigated. We should find out how the money is being spent, where it is being spent and in whose interests it is being spent. From what has been said, there is no doubt the hon. minister looks upon it as a very good organization.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In case there is any misapprehension, I assure the committee that the National Council of Women is a strictly nonpartisan organization. I know a number of the executives, and one of them was quite actively working against me in one election. I do not hold that against her. She is a very fine woman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not ask that time be taken tonight-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told it is $6,000 for the vote for the Canadian Association of Consumers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Labour
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
592.	To provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements that may be entered into by the Minister of Labour with the provinces and approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $50,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want an explanation of that item. With respect to this $50,000 item I read from page 19 giving the particulars the following:
To provide for expenditures to be borne by the federal government for the effective organization and use of manpower in agriculture and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, including undischarged commitments of previous years.
May we have an explanation of that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I shall be happy to give it. The explanation is as follows. Harvesting operations in western Canada last year were delayed because of adverse weather conditions and in October when harvesting became general a tight farm labour situation existed in the prairie provinces.
To supplement the farm labour force in the prairie provinces, the federal government, at the request of the prairie provinces, authorized the granting of special leave to members of the armed forces who volunteered for harvest work in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The arrangement was that servicemen who were granted special leave for harvest work were supplied with transportation from their units to place of employment and return transportation on the expiration of the leave period. Approximately 2,000 servicemen were granted leave for this purpose.
Perhaps I do not need to go into a long and detailed explanation as to how that amount was made up; but that is the main portion of this $50,000. There is a provision in our farm labour agreements with the provinces for sharing of expenses incurred in connection with the movement of farm workers and the cost of carrying out this special movement of servicemen. This particular vote which provides for that type of expenditure in general was not sufficient to cover that extra movement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General administration-
593.	Annuities Act-Notwithstanding the Government Annuities Act, to authorize the Minister of Labour in consequence of the transfer of employees from the original employers to the new employers specified in the details of the estimates to enter into contracts with the original employers and the new employers, to provide that the new employers
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
shall, effective on the dates respectively specified in the details, become parties to group annuity contracts specified in the said details respectively in the place of the original employers with respect to employees to whom those contracts applied and who were transferred to the new employers and for the application of the contracts in respect of service with the original employers and the new employers 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 contracts so entered into out of the government annuities account, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Minister of Labour would care to make a statement while we are on this item? He will recall my question on the orders of the day earlier this session as to whether we may expect the reintroduction of the bill to amend the annuities act. He said at that time that the matter was being studied further in his department and that we would be advised in due course. I wonder if "due course" has arrived.


Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to add to what I said on that occasion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like an explanation-it is a somewhat unusual transaction-of this dollar item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This dollar item is quite a proper item. The Government Annuities Act does not authorize amendments to group contracts to provide for continuation of pension rights to employees in consequence of the transfer of employees from original employers to new employers. The change of employers is occurring from time to time and without authority to amend group contracts supplementary votes are necessary to provide for such changes as they occur. A good many of the changes are just a change in the name of the firm. For instance, the first one that appears here is that of the Commercial Reproducing Company Limited. It is a change in the name. The new employer is Commercial Reproducing Canada Limited. The next one I have here is Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth and Nash; the new employer is Clarkson, Gordon and Company and the Clarkson Company. It is a technical provision.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
594.	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, $457,895.
George Randolph Pearkes: Can we have an explanation of this item-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: -as to how it compares with the items under the immigration branch?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is an additional vote of $457,000. Part of it covers salaries and wages as a result of the increase. The biggest single item, $285,000, covers foods and other supplies. The item as a whole is required in order to meet commitments for reclassifications and salary increases authorized during the year; to provide funds to cover the general salary revision authorized with effect from December 1, 1951; and to offset overtime compensation for casual employees at the hostels which occurred as a result of the large influx of immigrants necessitated by the winding up of the international refugee organization activities. As I say, the largest single item of the total supplementary vote was $285,900 for food and other supplies in connection with the immigration problem to which I have just referred.


George Randolph Pearkes: These are immigrants coming into this country from foreign countries abroad?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe that is the case; yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wonder if the minister could say whether any money is provided there for educational purposes. Some of the municipalities have been put to considerable expense in providing classes in order to teach these immigrants English. I was wondering whether any provision was made for that purpose. Urgent requests have been made for it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: From the detail which I have, I would say not; but it may be possible that there is something available under some general heading. The specific detail does not indicate that any portion of this vote is for that purpose.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think this matter is something which is unfair to our own unemployed people. I say that because last fall several men asked me whether they could get transportation from Prince Edward Island to Ontario in order to work on a farm up there. While they had a job in sight they did not have the means of getting there. They applied to get some assistance from this vote, and they were notified that if they were aliens or were newcomers that had just come in, they would get free transportation and would be taken care of with regard to all expenses while getting to Toronto. But men from our own province were not allowed one nickel. They had to go to work and finally sacrifice some little of their belongings, with the proceeds of which they hired a car and went through to Ontario where the three of them are very

well located on two quite large farms up there. I want to say this to the minister. Why is this provision not made so that our young men wanting to move from one province to another can have the same terms as are available to those who come into our country from Europe? I think that our sons and daughters who might want to transfer from one province to another should not be discriminated against, for lack of means, in getting jobs in some other province.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will look up vote 194 in the current estimates and the similar vote in last year's estimates he will see that there is a provision for that movement of farm workers between different parts of Canada in accordance with agreements entered into with the provinces.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Only in certain seasons.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Where is this going to stop? We are spending the taxpayers' money. We have heard here tonight that we are paying for a portion or all of a man's fare and his food and to whom we have said "Come to Canada" in order to give him a chance to settle. Then we hear that we should pay for Canadians who can talk our language and who have had the advantage of an education costing approximately $5,000. It is said that we should tote them back and forth from one end of this country to the other and1 feed them. I for one am absolutely against that sort of thing. Any fellow who was born in this country, or any woman, can hitchhike to where they know there is work. If they cannot do that, the sooner they walk into the river until their hat floats, the better.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
595.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund1-further amount required, $2,700,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: May we ask the minister for an explanation? The Minister of Labour is not here, so I will ask the Minister of Finance what has made the increased contribution necessary. Is that due to increased employment or the increased scale of employment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The increased scale of employment. The original estimates which I included in the main estimates was $27,500,000. As my hon. friend knows, under the Unemployment Insurance Act as amended, section 77, subsection 2, the Minister of Finance shall credit to the fund out of the moneys provided by parliament an amount equal to one-fifth of the aggregate credits made to the fund as unemployment insurance contributions. Funds
Supply-Legislation
provided in the main estimates for this year, as I have indicated, of $27,500,000, are insufficient to meet that statutory obligation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
597. To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the Senate who attended the first part of the fifth session, which commenced on October 9, 1951, and ended on December 21, 1951, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Christmas adjournment of parliament on December 21, 1951, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during that session, $5,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I remind the minister of an item that appeared in the press a few days ago, the authenticity of which I have checked. I should like to express my view to the Minister of Finance about it. I understand that one of the hon. gentlemen of the other place has complained that travelling expenses at Easter-and the situation at Christmas was similar-are now being paid to hon. senators only for the trip from Ottawa to their place of residence and back again. This particular hon. gentleman reported that some years ago it used to be possible for a senator to get his expenses at Easter from Ottawa to wherever he was going, whether to his home or elsewhere. In fact, this is what he said, as recorded in the Senate Hansard:
Suppose, for Instance, that any of us, on doctor's orders or for any other reason decided to go somewhere for a vacation at Easter, our travelling expenses were allowed.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the upshot of these remarks that were made in the other place a few days ago was to the effect that the leader of the Senate was asked to consult the authorities to see if something could be done about this matter. I take it that one of the authorities that would be consulted, if the leader of the Senate agreed to that proposal, would be the Minister of Finance himself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would hope so.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Give him a one-way ticket.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would that be classed as a pressure group?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it should be said in all fairness that this request was made by only one member of the other place. There is nothing in the Senate Hansard to indicate whether anybody else agreed with him. But I would think the minister would recognize the views of this house as expressed by the comments that have been interjected while I have been speaking, and that it would be
926	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare pretty clear that we would think that the situation should stand as it is, and that the hon. gentleman's request should not be met.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would assume that no one in this house would press that point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the past I have never taken what might be called a crack at the Senate, and I do not intend to start now, but I should like an explanation as to why that house with 102 members should require $5,500 of this item for travelling expenses, while this house of 262 members requires $8,000. In other words their requirement is well over half of what the House of Commons requires. Are the members of the Senate more peripatetic than the members of the House of Commons, or what?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They travel more slowly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot give any detailed explanation. It may be that some members of the other place have been suffering from a greater degree of infirmity in certain circumstances than hon. members here. The point is, these items do represent an accurate estimate made by the clerks of the two houses, as closely as possible, as to the amounts required to discharge legal obligations under these two heads.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, it would not be along the lines of the request I referred to. We can be assured that they do not get their expenses anywhere else than to their homes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; the item requires that it can only be actual expenditures from Ottawa to the place of ordinary residence and return. Then, with respect to the amount which is paid under the Senate and the House of Commons Act, the practice for some years has been to vote the actual expenses for one additional trip, or when there is a recess such as at Easter or at Christmas.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE National health branch-
Health services-
606. Immigration medical services-further amount required, $508,250.
George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask a question here, because I am getting a little bit confused. This is immigration. We have had an item under citizenship and another one under labour, and now we have one under national health and welfare. There is also one under external affairs. I suppose if there was a supplementary estimate for national defence, we would find one there. Can the minister please explain what these medical services
[Mr. Knowles.l

are for these immigrants, and whether there is a medical service set up in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as well?


Walter Edward Harris: We have no
medical services of our own. All of o<ur medical services are provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The additional grants here I am quite sure are due to the fact that last year we required more doctors abroad. We had greater facilities such as X-ray machines and the like in order to handle the larger number of immigrants who came.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you mean to say that the Department of National Health and Welfare administers medical services abroad to assist the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Labour and the Department of External Affairs? Do you also have representatives of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in circulation over there?


Walter Edward Harris: They had to examine a number of intending immigrants. That is what I meant when I said they did our medical services for us.


Mr. Nowlan:: If you look at the details you will find an amount of $65,000 for travelling expenses of the staff, and allowances, $62,533. That seems to be a terrific amount, and I was wondering whether the minister could explain how that was arrived at.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can explain that. The sum of $65,000 is mainly the travelling cost of nineteen additional doctors sent to Europe. It is their travelling expenses while performing their duties there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we want something a little more definite on item 606. The minister, when he was answering, said he felt quite sure that this was the case, but I want to know more definitely. Are we to take it that medical services are working for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and for the Department of Labour, both of whom I understand do carry on operations abroad? Are we to understand that there are officers there reporting direct to the Department of National Health and Welfare, and is that a sensible organization?


Mr. Mariin:: I was not in the house when this matter came up. The general practice of the government is to try to centralize in one department the medical services of the government in so far as it is possible, and we now service the Department of Citizenship and Immigration just as we do other departments of the government other than veterans affairs. Our services are naturally predicated upon the policy of the government in respect

of immigration. That policy has been stated here as an accelerated one, and it requires more doctors and more equipment, and consequent expenses based upon the policy of the day on immigration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here we have $508,000. Now, that did not all happen overnight.


Mr. Martin:: The sum of $117,000 of that is for salaries and wages. The sum of $62,000 is moneys for expenses such as nineteen additional doctors. The sum of $235,000 is for medical and other professional and special services, because in some cases the departmental doctors are not in the locality, and professional services have to be engaged for the examination of intending immigrants, particularly in view of the enforced program of X-raying of all immigrants who come to the country. A sum of $65,000 is for travelling expenses, estimated, and the sum of $800 for postage, and an estimated sum of $1,000 for telephones and telegrams.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does this also include the expenses at Hong Kong in connection with the Chinese immigrants coming to this country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not with respect to any of these particular supplementary items.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister give us more detail of the examination that is carried out by these doctors over there before immigrants are accepted? Are X-rays taken of the immigrant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said, X-rays are taken of every immigrant, and when the immigrant himself is not X-rayed he has to provide the plates taken by his doctor in places where there are no departmental doctors available.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is X-ray equipment sent over there today with these doctors, or is X-ray equipment over there made available to us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some X-ray equipment has been sent over. It has been found cheaper to purchase the X-ray equipment in most instances there.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand it is quite possible for an immigrant coming to this country, if there is no X-ray equipment at the port of exit, or where he is coming from, to go to hospital and get an X-ray plate and then take it to the immigration officer. I also understand that it is not always the X-ray plate of the immigrant that is shown.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it may happen.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that it is not always the X-ray plate of the immigrant that is produced.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend made the statement, and I just nodded that perhaps that does happen in some instances.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is anything being done to stop that sort of thing?


Murdo William Martin: Well, of course every precaution is taken. My hon. friend may be sure of that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did I understand from what the Minister of Finance said when he gave us the figure of nineteen doctors that the item for medical and other professional and special services of $235,000 is for these nineteen doctors?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Murdo William Martin: With respect to the item for medical and other professional and special services, as I said, it is not possible always to use the departmental doctors. For instance, this refers to actual expenses to February 29 of X-ray and professional amounts. As my hon. friend from Brant said, some of these immigrants come with their own plates. If we are satisfied as to the bona fides of these X-ray plates, they are accepted, but there are expenses involved in the making of these and of similar investigations.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do these X-rays include X-rays for proof of age such as are used in connection with Chinese immigrants coming here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The X-rays are used for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the applicant has tuberculosis.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the only thing.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it is not
carried. We are still on this medical attendance. We have an explanation of this item of $235,000 for medical and other professional and special services, which I understand to be a need which arises of engaging the services of local medical practitioners. What I am not clear about is what is temporary assistance, $117,000. Is that some other kind of medical assistance?


Murdo William Martin: That represents mostly increased wages.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Increased wages for whom?


Murdo William Martin: For some of the temporary assistants, $235,000; actual expenditures, $228,000; and for X-ray and other professional accounts, as of January 31, $102,000. I am using round figures. The amount estimated required for February and March will be
928	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare $46,000, and our anticipated total expenditures, $378,000, less the present appropriation of $143,000, leaving a total additional amount estimated to be required of $235,000.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; I have not got it yet. We have just heard a new figure of $102,000 for X-ray.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is part of the total vote of $890,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Where is the $890,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
607. Operation and maintenance, further amount required, $965,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This seems a relatively large increase in the amount spent for maintenance of Indian health services. I remember about six or seven years ago the total amount spent was no more than this sum. I cannot understand why the main estimates, which we passed last June, should have been out by this amount of money.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is only 10 per cent out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I cannot understand why this amount would be required. Can we have an explanation of that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Salaries, and professional and certain special fees in connection with doctors not engaged permanently by the department. There are estimated travelling expenses of $55,000; hospital, medical and other materials and supplies, $400,000; and travelling expenses for the transporting of Indians from their place of dwelling to the hospitals-an estimated amount of $60,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I saw all that on page 22. I was trying to find out why so much more was required than was estimated last June. Are there many more Indians who are ill? Has there been an increase in the rate of tuberculosis among them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member will look over the years he will find that this has generally been the case, because in winter the incidence of disease and illness among Indians and Eskimos is very considerable. It is not always possible to anticipate with any measure of exactitude the full requirements. This is almost an habitual situation which must arise, unless one could estimate accurately.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not 10 per cent of the main vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
610. Transportation; movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, further amount required, $1,614,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I note that this is divided into an amount of $914,000 for mail service by railway, $300,000 for mail service by ordinary land conveyance, including rural mail delivery, and $400,000 for mail service by air. This, I understand, is an additional expenditure over the year ending December 31, 1951. If the Postmaster General were in his seat I would have a proposal to make to him with reference to couriers both on the railway lines and the rural mail couriers. In 1947 a promise was made by the then postmaster general, and it was renewed by the one who followed him, that a committee of the House of Commons would be set up to study the problem of rural mail couriers. However, no action has been taken on that.
The postmaster general who has just left office did not even show us the courtesy of looking into it, or making an explanation of it. Even in the absence of the Postmaster General, I would point out that the contracts of rural mail couriers are still far from what they should be, both from the standpoint of their being inadequate to maintain a decent standard of living, and for other reasons.
Further consideration should be given in connection with the renewal of those contracts. What did the department do in my constituency only the other day? There had been employed a man who had given faithful service over a good many years. Someone had found out that it was possible that, occasionally, he had cast a vote for the right party-the Conservative party. That person then got busy, and went around canvassing people to put in tenders for the work this man had been doing.
Under the new act the department was not obligated, as it was formerly, to accept the lowest tender. Yet, for the sake of five dollars on a $1,500 contract, this man was let go, a man who had given service for eight or ten years, and who did not have a black mark against him.
The whole situation is ridiculous. I tell our Postmaster General that we expect something more from him than the mere promise of a committee to investigate the contracts of rural mail couriers. We know there is tremendous discrimination in them. I pointed out

at the last session instances in my own constituency where the condition was most unfair. One man was driving seventeen miles, another was driving twenty-seven and another eighteen. The man who was driving eighteen miles was receiving $1,000 more than the man who was driving twenty-seven. The discrimination is so great that it should be given attention. It is all figured out, in most cases, on a political basis. I want to have this on the record so that the Postmaster General, who is not in his seat tonight, as he should be, may take notice of what I have said, and give us a fair break when the contracts are renewed.


George Randolph Pearkes: When the main estimates for the year ending 1951-52 were brought down there was an increase of $6,789,614 over the amount which had been estimated for the previous year. Then with great fanfare and trumpeting we were told during the debate on the estimates, and the debates which followed, that a general improvement was to be introduced to the service, that a lot of economies were to be made, and that the walks for the various mail couriers were to be changed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has nothing to do with this item, as my hon. friend appreciates.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is going to. I am just explaining.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This addition is entirely due to higher railway rates, higher contract rates for the transport of mail.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is all very well, but we were told that we were going to have this great reduction.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It comes about because of what we have to pay the railways.


George Randolph Pearkes: And now you come around and ask for another $1,614,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have to pay the railways more money, the same as other civil servants. We must pay the railways more for carrying the mail; and this entire amount is required in this item.


George Randolph Pearkes: Did the department not make any saving at all from these wonderful improvements they were going to introduce?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The carriage of mail gets heavier and heavier all the time, and the costs are related to the volume of mail carried.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is all for freight on the railways, and nothing else, is it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is the big vote of $37 million, Of this total amount of $1,614,000,
Supply-Post Office
the sum of $914,000 is required to pay increased rates to the railways for the carriage of mail for the period of August 1, 1951, to March 31, 1952, on the basis of an interim increase of 12 per cent over existing rates. That was as a result of an increase that the railways were asking-and perhaps rightly so-for carrying the mail. Then there is $300,000 for an upward adjustment of the contract rate, where the annual cost is $1,000 or less-that is the rural mail courier to which my hon. friend was referring. Then there is $400,000 as an additional amount requested for mail service by air, due to the rapid increase in the volume of mail transported by transatlantic air mail service. There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of mail on the transatlantic air mail service, and a corresponding increase in the revenue, I may say. If there is more mail carried, we have to pay out more money.


George Randolph Pearkes: Well, I may be awfully stupid-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh no.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sure there are many members who will agree with that. However, the minister has said that there has been a great increase in the amount of mail carried by air, not only across the ocean, but across this continent. In fact, we were told that there was going to be all up-in-the-air mail service-that all mail was to be carried that way. I thought there was to be a reduction in the amount of mail to be carried by rail. It is not shown here at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend knows that the post office is an operating service department. As its revenues go up, its costs go up. Actually this year I think the post office will show a profit as against a deficit, or I hope it will. This will be as a result of increased revenues, partly due to increased efficiency and partly due to increased volume. It is the same as any other business; if your volume goes up your expenses go up.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the post office deficit this year as against the deficit last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot answer that, but I shall get the information for my hon. friend.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We used to have a surplus of $11 million or $12 million, but last year we had a deficit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that we will show a profit this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
930	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council
PRIVY COUNCIL Privy Council Office-
612. To provide for expenses of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan irrigation and power project, $40,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Can the minister tell us just how this item comes about and what was the original amount?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid that I am not too familiar with the details. As the hon. member knows, the members of the commission are Dr. Hogg, Mr. Gaherty, Dr. Widtsoe and Mr. Richardson.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: How many men?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are four.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That would be $10,000 apiece.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was nothing in the main estimates in connection with this commission.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will this be for one year's work?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is an estimated amount to cover liabilities incurred to March 31 which would include professional fees, travelling expenses, per diem allowances and so on.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture would care to state whether he has any idea when this commission will finish its work.


Mr. Gardiner:: The commission is not under the Department of Agriculture; it is under the Prime Minister and the government.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Perhaps the Minister of
Finance has some information?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Prime Minister gave an answer in the house the other day in reply to a question asked by some hon. gentlemen.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If there was nothing in the estimates with regard to this commission, does this vote represent the total outlay?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is the total amount that can be paid out of the current year's vote, but I am told that there is an item in next year's estimates of $70,000 covering next year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While it is quite true that this has been a matter of inquiry, even to those of us who are not so closely concerned it does seem a pity that we should vote $40,000 without having any statement as to just what progress is being made.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to a question the
Prime Minister placed on the table the other day a letter from the acting chairman of the commission which brought everything up to date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
Ottawa-
614. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc.-further amount required, $735,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: The details on page 23 indicate that nearly one-half of this amount or $280,000 is for salaries and wages; is there any explanation for that?


Alphonse Fournier: That increase is
accounted for by the increase in the salaries of civil servants passed on December 1, 1951. We had not budgeted in January last for those increases. It provides also for increases to prevailing rates employees whose wages were increased on the recommendation of the Department of Labour for the different trades.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: As this is a vote covering public buildings-


Alphonse Fournier: This item covers the maintenance of buildings in Ottawa and includes salaries, furnishings, furniture, repairs, upkeep of land, light, power, water and other municipal services.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is nothing for the repair of public buildings in other cities.


Alphonse Fournier: We did budget rightly for buildings outside of Ottawa, but in Ottawa we made a mistake of some $735,000 which was accounted for by the increases in salaries and prevailing rates.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is there anything in here with reference to the Prime Minister's dwelling?


Alphonse Fournier: No, absolutely nothing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is quite disarming to hear a minister of the crown use the word "mistake". It is rather refreshing.


Alphonse Fournier: I do that every session.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just once a session? There is an item of $200,000 for
rents. The minister has explained about salaries and wages, but why is an additional $200,000 needed for rents? What new buildings are you renting or have your rents gone up by $200,000?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not have the list here, but if my hon. friend will be patient and wait until my main estimates come down we can compare the rentals we are paying with rentals paid in previous years and we will see the increased rates that are charged for space. When I came into the department in 1942 we could get space for 65 cents a square foot, and now we must pay $2. No

landlord wants to rent premises at the rentals that were paid years ago. We have taken on new buildings that will be rented within a few weeks, and other space will be needed by the departments. This was the amount that was miscalculated-I will not say it was a mistake-because in January last we thought we could get through with an amount $200,000 less.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
616.	Ottawa, $2,160,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: Surely we are not going to be asked to vote an item of $2,160,000 without some explanation as to where the money is going to be spent.


Alphonse Fournier: This is in connection with the statistics building being erected at Tunney's Pasture. The contract was awarded in 1950 for $5,889,000 and to my surprise there will not be a revote because this is one time when they have proceeded much faster than I had thought they would. We did not think they would be able to spend more than $1,800,000, and they have actually nearly completed the building. The contractors, Anglin-Norcross Company, have caught me short and I had to apply to finance to get this $2 million. I am trying to reimburse them tonight by having this vote passed.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Were tenders called for that building?


Alphonse Fournier: I think there was only one tenderer although it was advertised all over the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering branch-
Graving docks-
617.	Prince Rupert dry dock and shipyard and appurtenant works-to provide for operating losses and essential repairs in the fiscal years 1950-51 and 1951-52, in accordance with the terms of order in council, P.C. 95/6770 of December 15, 1951, $117,000.
Mr. Applewhaile:: This gives me an opportunity to join the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works in the joy I am sure they would like to express that the deficit is reduced by $40,000 this year as against what we were required to vote last year. I should just like to take time to mention to the Minister of Defence Production that if he would keep the government-owned shipbuilding plant in mind and if the Minister of Transport would also keep it in mind when the Canadian National ships are being overhauled I think even this deficit would be wiped out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
55704-59J
Supply-Public Works
DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT Engineering and water resources branch- Trans-Canada highway division-
621. Notwithstanding the Trans-Canada Highway Act, to authorize and provide for a payment to the province of Newfoundland, which has entered into an agreement with Canada for construction of a part of the trans-Canada highway, in respect of construction of the highway carried out between December 10, 1949, and the day on which this province signed the agreement with Canada, in accordance with the regulations of the governor in council: the amount paid, however, not to exceed fifty per centum of the cost to the province of the said construction as determined by the governor in council; the maximum amount authorized to be expended by section 7 of the Trans-Canada Highway Act to be decreased to the extent of any amount paid pursuant to this vote, $28,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What authority is there for this? Is this another bit of legislation by vote?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Trans-Canada Highway Act makes statutory provision for payments in connection with the trans-Canada highway-I did not notice that my colleague, the Minister of Resources and Development was here-and this is a payment to Newfoundland for interim construction on the trans-Canada highway in that province.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand the agreements were entered into a couple of years ago. Would they cover construction of the highway carried on between December 10, 1949, and the date on which this province signed an agreement with Canada? Could that be covered under the Trans-Canada Highway Act?	,


Robert Henry Winters: It can. The Trans-Canada Highway Act provided for payments, but under the agreement signed between Newfoundland and Canada we can only pay in connection with work undertaken after the date of the signing of the agreement. This is an amount required to bridge the gap between the date of the passing of the act and the date of the signing of the agreement with Newfoundland.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the department entered into a contract with Nova Scotia for construction on the trans-Canada highway? I might tell him that there is a report current, and from authoritative quarters, that the reason for so much delay in entering into this contract is that the department has been most unfair in the terms of the agreement with Nova Scotia. It is entirely due to this condition that they have not proceeded with construction as they have in most other provinces. I understand that the route of the trans-Canada highway has been recommended by Nova Scotia and approved by the
932	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development 'minister's department. I want to know whether actual contracts or agreements have been entered into for the construction work?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman, no actual contracts have been entered into.


Percy Chapman Black: Is there any expectations of entering into agreements so that the work can get under way in 1952?


Robert Henry Winters: That, of course, is entirely up to the government of Nova Scotia. We have had an exchange of correspondence recently, and I believe the government of Nova Scotia is looking very seriously into the desirability of signing the agreement with us.


Percy Chapman Black: Is it a fair question to ask whether that is entirely due to the lack of co-operation on the part of the minister and his department that the work has not proceeded in the last two or three years in that province as it has in other provinces.


Robert Henry Winters: That certainly is not the view we hold.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to revert to the question I asked the minister a while ago. I draw his attention to a phrase which seems to me to cast doubt on what he said and lend support to what I said. If he observes the phraseology in items 620 and 622, he will note that it says "to provide for" and so on. In item 621 it says "to authorize and provide for." Now, I suggest that word is there for some reason, and I suggest also that what the minister said before did not seem to me to be clearly covering the period before the signing of the trans-Canada highway agreement. I stress the use of those words "authorize and provide for." If that word "authorize" means anything, it means that this vote is not merely providing for it but it is also authorizing it. In other words, it is legislation by a vote, which has been discussed in this house. If that is the right view, I think it is improper because the Prime Minister spoke very strongly against it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If this is, it is perfectly proper.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
sure what the minister is saying.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is quite proper to authorize by a vote; that is what the house is for. That is not what the Auditor General took exception to at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am drawing the minister's attention to the fact that you provide for something which has been authorized by parliament. If in fact that word *"authorize" means anything, it means there


is no authority for this at all and that this item is to be its own authority; that is exactly what we have complained about. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with his good memory, will recall-


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have already passed three items of this kind tonight.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We shall apologize for overlooking them, but I want to know-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Annuities Act was one of them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am talking about item 621, and if this is authorizing as well as providing, then I want to point out that I think it is improper. I want to ask if there is any real authority other than this.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it does not carry. I want the minister to answer that question.


Robert Henry Winters: The Trans-Canada Highway Act authorizes the federal government to pay to the provinces with respect to contracts entered into under the terms of the act. Now, it is not logical to expect that we can pay with respect to contracts unless there is an agreement, and this is the arrangement under the act to authorize us to pay in the normal course of events, with respect to contracts entered into after the agreement is signed. There is that period between the date on which the act received the royal assent and the date upon which the agreements were signed that is not provided for under the terms of the agreement, and this vote is to provide the authority for us to make payments with respect to contracts entered into during that period.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I recall correctly, this is long before there was any royal assent to this act. When was royal assent given?


Robert Henry Winters: December 10, 1949.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And has the
minister got the section under which this proposed expenditure was approved?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman, this applies for the period between the date of royal assent and) the date on which the agreement was signed with the government of Newfoundland.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In this case, June 23, 1950.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
632. Board of grain commissioners-operating and maintenance expenses including inspection, weighing, registration, etc.-further amount required, $136,100.
Hazen Robert Argue: On item 632, I believe I am correct in saying that under the Canada Grain Act the board of grain commissioners is to report to the minister during the first month of any year as to the operations of the board during the previous year. Has the board of grain commissioners reported to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and when may that report be made available to the members?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The report was tabled at the last session of parliament. It is the report for the year ended in 1951. The report for the year ending in 1952-the year does not end until March 31-is not available. We never prepare a report until after the year ends.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a report here for 1950, and it was reported to the minister on January 26, 1951. I was not aware of any change in the provisions. I know the minister is well acquainted with his department, but I rather believe that this time he is under a misapprehension. I would say a report was probably made in January of this year for the year 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No report has been made. It is my recollection-I may be wrong and I frequently am-that the year for the grain commission ends on March 31. I may be wrong, but in any case I have not received a report that has not been tabled in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Irrespective of what time the minister has received or may receive the annual report, will he consider having that report go to the agriculture committee in order that that committee may inquire into the actions of the board of grain commissioners? The annual report of the wheat board has been referred to the agriculture committee, and I wonder if the report of the board of grain commissioners might not also be referred to it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the intention to refer that report of the board of grain commissioners to the agriculture committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: During the present session?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
636. Construction or acquisition of vessels and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $948,550.
George Clyde Nowlan: There is an item of $948,000, and we find in the details on page 26 that there is an icebreaker for the St. Lawrence area for which an amount of $900,000 is to be voted. Is that for construction or the acquisition of a new ship?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: That is for the construction of a new ship. The contract was awarded some time ago, and the contractor is Davies Shipbuilding.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that the final payment on account of it?


Lionel Chevrier: No, that is the first payment.


George Clyde Nowlan: When was the contract
awarded?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not give the date exactly, but it was some months ago. The item was considered in the main estimates last year.


George Clyde Nowlan: And it will be included in the estimates coming up?


Lionel Chevrier: Quite.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do 1 understand that this is the first reference to this item of ship construction?


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. member referring to the same item as the member for Annapolis-Kings?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is not. It was in the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
641.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,280,000 already appropriated, to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1951-52 to the Cana-, dian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1951-further amount required, $85,286.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It says here that there is a deficit in the operations of the Prince Edward Island car ferry. From the way this bookkeeping is done, you would think that there was a deficit of several millions of dollars in the operation of the car ferry, but I understand that charged into that is almost half a million dollars for repairs to the boats themselves. Why should that be put into the operation of the ferry system? I have been raising this question every year, but the bookkeeping seems to be all muddled. You do not know what revenue is coming in. You cannot find out whether there were a dozen or 10,000 cars of potatoes that crossed on the ferry. You cannot find out how much should be credited to the ferry for each car that went across, and most of the cars were destined long distances. The ferry should have a real credit for taking them the nine miles.	,

Supply-Transport
Notwithstanding this fact, from year to year the same system of bookkeeping continues. It is most annoying to see that the deficit is gradually increasing. If it is operation, we should know. I do not see how you can charge to operating expenses the entire construction and repair work on the terminals as well as the ships. Surely, there is something wrong or else you are charging the wrong account.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
642.	To authorize the write-off from non-active assets to consolidated deficit account of the balances of advances or loans ($3,618,505.74) made to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited. Notwithstanding any other act. interest shall cease to accrue on this amount on and from January 1, 1952, $1.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice that this item is to authorize the write-off from non-active assets to consolidate deficit account of the balances of advances or loans, $3,618,505.74, to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give a very short explanation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All right.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Prior to 1935, by authority of the various appropriation acts, interest bearing loans were made to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships to cover operating deficits. Between 1929 and 1934 the aggregate of those loans amounted to $5,059,960.94. A portion of that was repaid from surplus earnings for the years 1946 to 1948, leaving a net balance of $3,618,505.74 operating deficits incurred prior to 1934 for which these loans were made. But since 1935 those operating deficits have been voted each year as is now done for the Canadian National Railways. This dollar item is to ask authority to write off that liability on the books and treat it as though, in the earlier period, it had been voted each year as has been the case since 1935. It is just to tidy up the books.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the actual situation? Can the minister give us the recent operating result? Can he tell us what is going on now or what is likely to happen?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say to my hon. friend that this matter was carefully gone into in the railways and shipping committee last year and it is covered here. In order to give the details, I would have to have the report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships with me and unfortunately I have not got it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not ask for the details. All I want to know is this. I admit that my memory does not serve me any better than does the minister's. Can he tell me whether, in fact, the company is doing sufficiently well to go on reducing this amount?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. They are losing money.


Lionel Chevrier: No. There is an operating deficit. I cannot remember what the figure was but it is in the neighbourhood of $700,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
643.	To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $148,733.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: Here is another item for which no explanation is given, either in the back of the book or where it appears under the general items. I do not know what it means. It may mean for burnt stores.


Lionel Chevrier: Last year or the year before we passed the Department of Transport Stores Act providing for the erasing of certain stores that were destroyed by fire or became obsolescent. The largest part of that amount of $125,000 is for the loss of articles in the department at the Moncton fire.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What about insurance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: How does this work out?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The government carries its own insurance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How does this work out? If we vote money for the purpose of buying stores, and that is now taken care of by the Department of Transport Stores Act, why, when we lose stores, should we vote more money? Are we not voting money twice over for the same purpose?


Lionel Chevrier: This is provided by virtue of the act. If my hon. friend looks at section 8 of the act he will see there that the Minister of Transport, with the approval of the treasury board, may direct the deletion from stores inventory of obsolete or unserviceable stores or stores lost or destroyed. That is being done under the authority of that act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was an investigation made into this fire in Moncton and was any report made to the government of the loss of those stores?


Lionel Chevrier: An investigation was made into the cause of the fire. I do not recollect now what the report was but I have here a detailed statement of the amount of goods that were lost.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was any blame attached to any person or persons?


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to draw exclusively on my memory it I were to answer that question, and I should not like to do so in so far as the report of the fire is concerned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister used a certain phrase, in answer to a question about insurance. He said "We carry our own insurance." Will the minister be a little more specific about that matter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The character of government assets is such that we have a sufficient distribution of risks to make it more economical for the government to carry its own insurance, or to carry its own risk, rather than to pay premiums on government property. We have a sufficiently wide area over which to distribute the possibility of loss as well as or better than any private insurance company, so it is a standard practice for governments not to pay over premiums to insurance companies. It is more economical to insure ourselves.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I understand that. But their practice is actually followed. Do you in fact charge to revenue each year a certain amount for insurance? As a matter of fact, it is another way of saying that we do not have any insurance at all?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course. The government is its own insurer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, no; it
is not as simple as all that. There are people who do what the minister said a moment ago that we do and which I know we do not do. There are people who do actually carry their own insurance and make it a real affair. As I understand it, the minister says that we follow a different plan. I am not saying for the moment whether it is right or wrong, but it is not carrying insurance. It means that we do not carry any insurance, as I understand it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are arguing about terminology. We are our own insurer.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Sometimes the government carries insurance. Is that not so? Do they not carry insurance on their steamships?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not answer that question offhand. There may be some special cases.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I will answer the question for the minister. I will give him examples showing that they do carry insurance occasionally. The S.S. Charlottetown was lost
Supply-Transport
some years ago when she was on her way up to Saint John to be repaired. She was insured the day before she pulled up anchor to leave Borden. She was insured for $1 million and that insurance was paid.


Lionel Chevrier: That was insurance against fire.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was not referring to marine insurance. I was referring to fire insurance on buildings and equipment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It would have been the same with fire insurance.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Suppose she had taken fire up in the yards at Saint John, New Brunswick. It would have been all the same thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certain of the comments we make appear to be the cause of merriment, but that is quite all right. I should like to understand why it is that the item reads as follows:
To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account . . .
rather than to authorize the writing off of the stores? As I understand the situation, the bulk of this item is made up on account of stores that have been burned. Why is it to be to reimburse the account for which we have already voted money rather than to authorize the writing off of stores to the value of those which were destroyed?


Lionel Chevrier: I thought I had explained that matter to my hon. friend a moment ago by referring to the section. I read part of it but I did not read the whole of it. I thought it was sufficient to read the part I read, but let me read the whole of it. It is chapter 34 of the statutes of 1950, amending the Department of Transport Stores Act. Section 8 of the act reads as follows:
The Minister of Transport, with the approval of the treasury board, may direct the deletion from stores inventory of obsolete or unserviceable stores, or stores lost or destroyed, and the value of stores so deleted shall be credited to the stores account and charged to appropriations that may be made by parliament for this purpose from time to time.
That is the reason it is set out in that fashion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
645. Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $10,000.
George Alexander Cruickshank: Here there is a $10,000 additional grant. Has that yet been allotted?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. It is under a plan in the Department of Transport whereby certain

Supply-Transport
grants are made to flying schools for the provision of these pilots. There was not a sufficient amount in the main estimates and there is $10,000 required to complete these payments.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the point I want to get at. In the list here I see the names of Atlin, and Cranbrook; and for a little place called Westview there is $12,000. What I want to find out is if this additional $10,000 has been allotted. I have been trying to get $25,000 or even $3,000 for the best municipal airport in the Dominion of Canada. There is no question about it, it is the largest training school. I want to know if this $10,000 has already been allotted.


Lionel Chevrier: It has been allotted in the same manner as the $250,000 referred to has been allotted. There is a shortage, and that is why the $10,000 is in here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is just the point I want the minister to clarify for me. Is that $10,000 going to Westview or is it going to Chilliwack?


Lionel Chevrier: It does not say here where it is going. I have no information on that point here with me.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Make sure it goes to Chilliwack.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-:
647. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $15,000.
Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure the Minister of Transport has had a number of representations from the trucking associations in western Canada. As the minister knows, the railways have offered an agreed charge to the oil refineries and the oil companies if they will use the railways exclusively for the transportation of petroleum products. The truckers, some 2,000 or more, in the province of Saskatchewan, are most concerned lest the agreed charges, if they become effective, will overnight wipe many of them out of business. So they have been requesting members of parliament from western Canada and the members of the board of transport commissioners to be given the opportunity to present their case to the board. As I understand the Railway Act at the present time, neither truckers, nor the trucking association, are allowed to appear before the board of transport commissioners. I know that the minister himself supports a national transportation policy. I know also that the trucking association have opposed anything being done to control trucking-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him? This item is simply $15,000 to pay extra professional services. Now, on the question of his general remarks on trucking and the board of transport commissioners, I would appeal to him to facilitate the getting of these items through tonight.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will respect the minister's appeal. I may well have been out of order. I want to ask one question which the trucking association is most interested in. According to the Regina Leader-Post of Monday, March 24, they are most interested and expect that an amendment to the act will be brought down at this session of parliament to allow the truckers association to appear before the board of transport commissioners. I do not think I need to quote that part of the article. I want to know from the minister whether it is the government's intention to bring down amendments to the Railway Act so that the trucking association will be allowed to appear before the board of transport commissioners in the future.


Lionel Chevrier: With respect to the Canadian automotive association to which my hon. friend referred, I saw delegates from the truckers association of Saskatchewan, and it was made quite clear to them that the application now before the board of transport commissioners contains a provision whereby the board must make sure, before it approves an agreed charge, one, that the agreed charge is compensatory to the railways, and two, that it does not reduce the revenue of the railways, and to me the delegates seemed to have gone home satisfied.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I take it that the minister does not intend to introduce amendments to the Railway Act along that line?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I cannot answer that. The government has not had the opportunity of considering it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Pensions and other benefits-
649. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act-further amount required, $5,100,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: There is a point here that I am very anxious to bring to the attention of the minister. When the pensions were raised the unemployability supplement was discontinued. A notice was sent to all veterans

who were receiving the unemployability supplement in British Columbia, which read as follows:
As a recipient of the unemployability supplement you have been eligible for complete treatment coverage through the Department of Veterans Affairs, and because of this you were exempt from payment of premium to the British Columbia hospital insurance service.
On December 31, 1951, the supplement ceases and with it your entitlement to full treatment coverage; (you will, of course, still be entitled to treatment for your pensioned disability). You are therefore subject to payment of premium under the provincial hospitalization plan, and you are advised to secure this coverage for yourself as soon as possible.
It is signed by the senior treatment medical officer at Vancouver. This is a matter which I called to the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs before this legislation was brought in, because I realized that it would inflict a very considerable hardship on a large number of veterans. I have had a great many letters on this subject. I am just going to quote two very short paragraphs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I appeal to my hon. friend as I have to others? We are going to have a veterans affairs committee. This vote is the direct consequence of the amendments to the Pension Act. I would hope that we can defer discussion on general policy questions such as this until either the main estimates or the amendments to the Pension Act. It is of some importance that we conclude consideration of these estimates this evening, because there are a great many wage claims and others which cannot be paid until the bill has gone through. I was going to ask that perhaps the house might consent to sit shortly after eleven o'clock. I am in the hands of the committee, but there are a good many bills, including salaries of civil servants, that cannot be paid until the necessary appropriation act has been passed by both houses. I would hope that all these questions can be fully considered on the main estimates. I shall try to urge that we do not discuss too much policy on these items. There are certain items here that that does not apply to, and I had hoped that we could get to them.


George Alexander Drew: It was indicated this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood that we were anxious to facilitate the passing of all items which related to the paying of any money. That proposal was made at the very outset. It was not acceded to. It is quite apparent that these items cannot be concluded tonight, and the government must accept any responsibility for any delay.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The government will accept no such responsibility; the house will accept the responsibility.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, these remarks can be conducted in a manner that is in keeping with the amount that is before the committee. These items first came before the committee this afternoon. They involve a matter of some $500 million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, $200 million.


George Alexander Drew: In the total?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, $200 million and some odd.


George Alexander Drew: That we have been discussing here?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, $200 million and some odd.


George Alexander Drew: The figures that are before the committee today are comparable to many budgets only a comparatively few years ago, and there are items that will be under discussion for some time. The Minister of Agriculture was not available at the time his items came up, and these are appropriate items to bring up to date the discussion on an extremely important subject. While we are anxious to facilitate the (passing of these items, we are certainly not willing to foreclose the discussion on a subject that is of the utmost importance not only to hon. members but to the whole of Canada, and therefore we do not intend to agree to the extension of time. This can be proceeded with on Monday and dealt with in a proper way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am quite prepared to accept that, Mr. Chairman, of course, but I want to make it perfectly clear to several thousand civil servants, whose cheques would normally have gone out today, that the responsibility for the failure to get them out belongs to the House of Commons.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, up to this point these items had been dealt with in a spirit that suggested that we were likely to proceed on a somewhat amicable basis. This is simply another example of the attempt of this government to force items through in a way that denies discussion, and it is the duty of the opposition, which the opposition intends to accept, to see that these items are subject to proper examination. We do not intend to have it said that we have delayed items which are only brought before this house on the Friday before the end of the month. They could have been before us two weeks ago, with ample time to discuss them and have any detail there is. The government is doubly responsible.
This afternoon the hon. member for Greenwood afforded an opportunity to dispose of all items involving payment, to get them
938	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs out of the way. That was not accepted, and we are not going to be placed in that position by any blackmail of this kind to close-


Some hon. Members:: Take it back.


George Alexander Drew: -to close off the discussion which arose in connection with the Department of Agriculture at a time when the Minister of Agriculture was unavailable to us, circulating around outside this chamber this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I have had an opportunity to read over the debates of this afternoon. On a number of occasions reference was made to the fact that neither I nor my assistant was here. My assistant went home yesterday sick. He is in bed sick at home. That is the only reason he is not here. This afternoon at four o'clock I was presented with the report of the board of Regina which is making decisions on what money should be paid to the individual farmers, the complete report, and I spent the afternoon going over that report. The work is not completed simply because I had to come into the house tonight and sit here and wait for this item. I have been waiting here now for it for an hour and a half.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister would allow me-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the floor. A lot of things were said when I was not here. This afternoon I was considering a report that came in at four o'clock, the full report of what is due to the farmers under this vote. All I want to do is to back up what has already been said by the Minister of Finance, that this money is required before any payments whatsoever can be made on these items. If they must stand over until Monday, all well and good; but they could well be passed within the next half hour, and I do not know of any reason why we should not sit here and pass them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have one word to say. I am not quarrelling with the decision to carry these over until Monday, but I want to point out what I have pointed out earlier today, namely, that most of the discussion that has come from the opposition on a number of these items is not related to the items; it has been about general policy matters relating to the department. In most cases there has been no particular scrutiny of the particular amount that is asked for, but, as has always been the case in the past, there has been general discussion on policy matters relating to agriculture, veterans affairs, the Prince Edward Island car ferry, or what have you. Now, I will not accept for one moment the


assertion of the leader of the opposition that we are trying to blackmail anybody into doing anything.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have been putting estimates through the house, including final supplementary estimates, longer than he has been here, and I have never tried to blackmail anybody. The practice that has been followed with respect to bringing down final supplemen-taries and the items that are included in them are in strict accordance with the practice ever since confederation, and when anybody tells me that I have tried to blackmail anybody else I just will not take it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I will agree that these are presented in exactly the same way that estimates have been presented. They have been presented in a way that was designed to prevent adequate discussion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has made a charge of bad faith against the government. I ask you if that is parliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Douglas Charles Abbott: I assume that the house will be prepared to give unanimous consent to a detailed consideration of the supplementary estimates on Monday, which is ordinarily private members' day.


George Alexander Drew: I certainly will consent, on behalf of the Conservative members of this house, to proceed with this on Monday, as we are anxious to facilitate the passing of these items.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One thing I think should be made clear, that has not been made clear, and that is-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Comedians. The house is
adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member
can speak only with unanimous consent. It is eleven o'clock.


James Sinclair: Have your leader set the estimates, and see what the total is.

Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven
o'clock, the house stands adjourned until three o'clock Monday afternoon.


James Sinclair: One hundred per cent error- that is what George Drew would estimate.


[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]:

[Stage Direction]
564.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $5,000.
Marketing service-
565.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $11,222.
Terminable services-
566.	Agricultural lime assistance-further amount required, $95,000.

[Stage Direction]
International shortwave broadcasting service-
570.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $124,950.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration branch-
Field and inspectional service, Canada-
571.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $329,300.
572.	To provide for the extension to March 31, 1952, of the period during which payments may be made to Trans-Canada Air Lines of the difference in cost between air transportation and minimum tourist class ocean transportation for immigrants transported from the United Kingdom by Trans-Canada Air Lines during such extended period- further amount required, $350,000.
Indian Affairs branch-
Education-Day and residential schools-
573.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $85,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
574.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $25,000.
575.	To provide for relief of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and for the reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable)-further amount required, $5,000.
576.	Canadian representation at international conferences-further amount required, $40,000.
577.	To provide for the expenses incurred by Canada as host at the Ottawa conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, $19,000.
55704-60i
B-General-
Terminable services-
578.	Contribution to the provisional inter-governmental committee for the movement of migrants from Europe, $50,100.
579.	To provide for a gift of wheat as a contribution to famine relief for Greece, $825,000.
[Stage Direction]
Public debt charges-
Servicing of public debt-
580.	Commission for payment of interest on public debt, etc.-further amount required, $32,000.
Payments to municipalities-
581.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-further amount required, $249,000.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
582.	Cost of telephone service at Ottawa for all departments-further amount required, $55,000.
583.	To authorize the deletion from the accounts of certain uncollectible debts due to the crown amounting in the aggregate to $30,506,622.09 in accordance with the recommendations of the standing committee on public accounts as contained in the third report of the committee to the House of Commons dated June 27, 1951, and to make the necessary accounting adjustments to reinstate the retirement fund with respect to overpayments made therefrom in the amount of $1,765.78, being a portion of the total amount to be so deleted from the accounts, $1,766.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
584.	To provide for a government contribution, to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current and arrears payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year -further amount required, $4,943,977.
585.	Further contribution to the superannuation fund in respect of additional liability consequent upon the salary increases effective December 1, 1951, $23,000,000.
586.	To provide for the transfer to the civil service superannuation account of the second instalment of a special government contribution of a portion of the amount by which the estimated liabilities exceed the balance in the account, $75,000,000.
Miscellaneous grants-
587.	Contributions towards the national women's organization program in connection with the prosecution of a thrift campaign, not to exceed. $10,000.
[Stage Direction]
Field services-
Fish culture and development branch-
588.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $60,000.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE A-Department-
589.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $3,000.
590.	Exchequer Court of Canada-administration -further amount required, $3,000.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR A-Department-
General administration-
591.	Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act-further amount required, $23,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
592.	To provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements that may be entered into by the Minister of Labour with the provinces and approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $50,000.
593.	Annuities Act-notwithstanding the Government Annuities Act, to authorize the Minister of Labour in consequence of the transfer of employees from the original employers to the new employers specified in the details of the estimates to enter into contracts with the original employers and the new employers, to provide that the new employers shall, effective on the dates respectively specified in the details, become parties to group annuity contracts specified in the said details respectively in the place of the original employers with respect to employees to whom those contracts applied and who were transferred to the new employers and for the application of the contracts in respect of service with the original employers and the new employers 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 contracts so entered into out of the government annuities account, $1.00.
Terminable services-
594.	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, $457,895.
B-Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
595.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund-further amount required, $2,700,000.
[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
596.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the fifth session of the twenty-first parliament, 1951, 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, $9,000.
597.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the Senate who attended the first part of the fifth session, which commenced on October 9, 1951, and ended on December 21, 1951, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Christmas adjournment of parliament on December 21, 1951, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during that session, $5,500.
598. General	administration-further	amount
required, $14,260.
House of Commons-
599.	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 fifth session of 1951-notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in chap. 147 of the Revised Statutes, 1927, an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendments thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $17,650.
600.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the House of Commons who attended the first part of the fifth session, which commenced on October 9, 1951, and ended on December 21, 1951, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Christmas adjournment of parliament on December 21, 1951, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date or at any other one time during that session, $8,000.
601.	General administration-estimates of the Clerk -further amount required, $70,400.
602.	Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms-further amount required, $17,500.
[Stage Direction]
B-Dominion coal board-
603.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-further amount required, $780,000.
[Stage Direction]
604.	Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials-further amount required, $48,000.
605.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment -further amount required, $29,180.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH ^ND WELFARE
National health branch-health services-
606.	Immigration medical services-further amount required, $508,250.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
607.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $965,000.
Welfare branch-Old age security-
608.	To provide for the transfer to the old age security fund of the amount by which the pension payments from the fund exceed the receipts into the fund during the fiscal year 1951-52, which is estimated at, $57,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Atomic energy control board-
Atomic energy project-
609.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and to provide for payment to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under vote 307 of the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1951, as well as under this item, for housing and other works constructed at Deep River during 195051 and 1951-52 by the corporation, such payment to be applied in repayment of advances, and interest thereon, made to it out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of constructing such works-further amount required, $1,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
610.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration-further amount required, $1,614,000.
611.	To authorize and provide for payment out of the superannuation account in the current and subsequent fiscal years to or in respect of Ernest

Lefebvre, formerly a letter carrier, Ottawa post office, in accordance with the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the said Ernest Lefebvre to be deemed for all the purposes of that act to have retired voluntarily from the civil service on December 23, 1950, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Privy council office-
612.	To provide for expenses of the royal commission on the south Saskatchewan irrigation and power project, $40,000.
[Stage Direction]
613.	Distribution of official documents-further amount required, $3,600.
[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
614.	Ottawa-Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc.-further amount required, $735,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major	repairs	and
improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
615.	Newfoundland ($5,000 less the amount of $4,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1951-52 for this province), $1.
616.	Ottawa, $2,160,000.
Engineering Branch-Graving Docks-
617.	Prince Rupert dry dock and shipyard and appurtenant works-To provide for operating losses and essential repairs in the fiscal years 1950-51 and 1951-52, in accordance with the terms of order in council, P.C. 95/6770 of December 15, 1951, $117,000.
Locks and Dams-
618.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $26,500.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects -further amount required-
619.	Newfoundland ($1,950 less the amount of $1,949 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1951-52 for this province, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Engineering and water resources branch-Water resources division-
620.	To provide for the expenses incurred under the agreement between Canada, Ontario and Manitoba, confirmed by the Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928, moneys expended to be largely reimbursed- further amount required, $1,607.
Trans-Canada highway division-
621.	Notwithstanding the Trans-Canada Highway Act, to authorize and provide for a payment to the
Supply
province of Newfoundland, which has entered into an agreement with Canada for construction of a part of the Trans-Canada highway, in respect of construction of the highway carried out between December 10, 1949, and the day on which this province signed the agreement with Canada, in accordance with the regulations of the governor in council; the amount paid, however, not to exceed fifty per centum of the cost to the province of the said construction as determined by the governor in council; the maximum amount authorized to be expended by section 7 of the Trans-Canada Highway Act to be decreased to the extent of any amount paid pursuant to this vote, $28,000.
622.	To provide for payment to the Northwest Territories power commission of an amount to be applied by the commission in repayment of the balance owing of advances made by the Minister of Finance to the commission in respect of the Hay River power project which was subsequently discontinued, $1,700.
[Stage Direction]
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
623.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $153,000.
Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
624.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $6,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
625.	Pensions to families of members of the Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $730.
626.	Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account, $938,331.
[Stage Direction]
Patent and copyright office-
627.	Copyright and industrial designs division- further amount required, $822.
628.	Patent record division-further amount required, $15,000.
General-
629.	Expenses pertaining to the visit to Canada of Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, $332,145.
630.	Expenses in connection with the advisory commission on war claims, $8,500.
[Stage Direction]
General administration-
631.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for damage to and loss of furniture and effects, under regulations approved by the governor in council- further amount required, $37,500.
Canada Grain Act-
632.	Board of grain commissioners-operating and maintenance expenses including inspection, weighing, registration, etc.-further amount required, $136,100.
633.	Canadian government elevators-operation and maintenance expenses-further amount required, $203,950.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Canal services-
634.	To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations-further amount required, $10,000.
Marine services-
635. Administration-further amount required, $3,400.
636.	Construction or acquisition o£ vessels and new equipment-capital

further amount required, $948,550.
Nautical services-
637.	Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions, as detailed in the estimates- further amount required, $6,355.
638.	Pilotage service-further amount required, $50,573.
Railway and Steamship Services-
Maritime Freight Rates Act-
639.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $9,125,000 already appropriated for payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1951-52, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways, and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1951 (chap. 79, statutes of 1927, as amended)-further amount required, $988,881.
Canadian National Railways Deficit, 1951-
640.	Amount required to provide for the payments, during the fiscal year 1951-52, to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1951, this amount to be applied in the repayment of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund, $15,031,996.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit 1951-
641.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,280,000, already appropriated, to provide for the
payment during the fiscal year 1951-52 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1951-further amount required, $85,286.
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-
642.	To authorize the write-off from non-active assets to consolidated deficit account of the balances of advances or loans ($3,618,505.74) made to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited. Notwithstanding any other act, interest shall cease to accrue on this amount on and from January 1, 1952, $1.00.
General-
643.	To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $148,733.
Air services-
Telecommunications Division-
Northwest communication system-
644.	Additional amount in excess of $100,659 already appropriated to provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1952-further amount required, $56,679.
Civil aviation division-
645.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $10,000.
646.	To provide for the refund of land rentals, paid by Trans-Canada Air Lines and deposited to the consolidated revenue fund prior to April 1, 1951, on a certain parcel of land forming part of Vancouver airport, $3,300.
B-General-
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
647.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $15,000.
Canadian maritime commission-
648.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $88,653.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 31, 1952