1952-06-18

[Stage Direction]
Third	report	of	special	committee	on
defence expenditure.-Mr. Croll.
Third	report	of	special	committee	on
veterans affairs.-Mr. Croll.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to lay on the table two copies in English of the report of the advisory commission on war claims. I had hoped to have the French version at the same time but the congestion at the printing bureau has made it impossible to have it for a few days yet. I thought it would be desirable to have the English version available at once as there is apt to be an item in the supplementary estimates dealing with this subject. I understand that the English version is ready for distribution to hon. members.


Mr. Green:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to this report. Will there be any legislation at this session as a result of the report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: For the time being there will be an enabling item in the supplementary estimates to authorize the setting up of the war claims fund and the transfer from the general accounts of consolidated revenue to the war claims fund of the proceeds of certain enemy assets that have been converted. It may be that ultimately legislation will be required but it was felt that it was desirable to proceed as rapidly as possible and that further experience might be acquired in the course of proceeding before definite legislation in the form of a separate statute was introduced.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 18, 1952
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the
55704-213J
Senate chamber on Wednesday, the 18th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



QUESTIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works intend to proceed with construction of the Pembroke-Allu-mette Island bridge, during the present year?
2.	Has there been any correspondence with the governments of Quebec and Ontario relating to each of the said governments contributing one-third of the cost of construction? If so, have the governments agreed or refused so to do?
3.	What is the estimated total cost?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Answered by 2 (b).
2.	(a) Yes. (b) No definite replies from provincial governments.
3.	$1,000,000.


DEFINITION OF TERRITORIAL WATERS-REPORT BY COMMITTEE
Mr. Applewhaiie:: 1.	Is there an interdepartmental committee now considering the question of the definition or extension of Canadian territorial waters?
2.	Has any report been made by this committee? If so, when, and to whom?
3.	If not, when is it expected a report will be made, and to whom?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	The interdepartmental committee on territorial waters is a standing committee of representatives of departments concerned with territorial waters and considers questions that arise from time to time relating to them. It has at present under consideration a number of matters relating to the definition of Canadian territorial waters.
2 and 3. The committee is simply a part of the internal arrangements of the government and members of the committee either report to their respective departments on its proceedings, or, from time to time, the committee through its chairman reports to the cabinet. It is simply a convenient way of keeping departments in touch with one another.

Questions



VICTORIA MACHINERY DEPOT COMPANY


Mr. Green:: 1.	Has work been suspended on a minesweeper launched recently at the plant of Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited, in Victoria, British Columbia?
2.	If so, when was such work suspended, and for what reason?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



SUSPENSION OF WORK ON MINESWEEPER AT VICTORIA, B.C.

Mr. Green:: 1.	Has work been suspended on a minesweeper at Victoria, British Columbia, the keel of which has been laid, but which is not ready for launching?
2.	If so, when was such work suspended, and for
what reason?	,


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



GOVERNMENT PRINTING

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has consideration been given to the placing of all government printing in shops entitled to the use of the union label?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Has consideration been given to the use of the union label on government printing when such printing is done in union shops?
4.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Bradley:: In so far as respects the Department of Public Printing and Stationery:
1.	No. When a department requests the use of a union label on its printing requirements the order is placed with a printing shop entitled to use it, when the printing is not processed in this department.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No. Government printing bears the imprimatur of the queen's printer, and the question of adding the union label when a job is printed in a shop entitled to its use has not been considered.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



PUBLIC SERVICE PERSONNEL


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the treasury board made any regulations under the provisions of section 7 (d) (i) of the Financial Administration Act, having to do with the offering of compensation or other rewards to persons in the public service for inventions or for suggestions designed to effect improvements in the handling of public business?
2.	If so, what are the terms of such regulations?

3.	If not, is consideration being given to the making of such regulations, and when will they be announced?


Mr. Sinclair:: 2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Consideration is being given to regulations and arrangements necessary for putting them into effect; the time of any announcement on the matter will depend upon approval of the proposals now being made ready.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Couriemanche:: 1.	Have any payments been made by any department of the federal government to Mr. Armand Drouin, barrister, Lac Megantic, since 1935?
2.	If so, what amounts, and for what services, each year?


GUY BLANCHETTE
Mr. Couriemanche:: 1.	Have any payments been made by any department of the federal government to Mr. Guy Blanchette, barrister, Sherbrooke, since 1935?
2.	If so, what amounts, and for what services, each year?


LOUIS PHILIPPE CLICHE
Mr. Couriemanche:: 1.	Have any payments been made by any department of the federal government to Mr. Louis Philippe Cliche, barrister, Lac Megantic, since 1935?
2.	If so, what amounts, and for what services, each year?


BRITISH WAR MEDALS AND MERCANTILE MARINE MEDALS
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	Have British war medals been awarded to residents of (a) Nova Scotia; (b) Canada, in the last twelve months?
2.	If so, to whom, and in recognition of what services?
3.	Have mercantile marine medals been awarded to residents of (a) Nova Scotia; (b) Canada, in the last twelve months?
4.	If so, to whom, and in recognition of what services?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Probably I might at this time give my ruling with respect to standing order No. 60.
On May 20 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) requested me to consider standing order No. 60 and to give my opinion as to its proper construction. On June 4 and
1. No.

16 there were further discussions on this standing order, which reads as follows:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint: and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
All hon. members who have taken part in the discussions agree that the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a resolution preceding a money-bill is debatable. In my opinion that is the correct view so long as subclause (a) of standing order No. 38 remains in its present form.
The question on which there is some difference of opinion is the extent to which debate is to be allowed. This question was considered by Mr. Speaker Glen on the 23rd of February, 1942. At that time he ruled that the debate should be directed to the negative of the motion and should be general with no reference to details.
I should point out that the motion is for the Speaker to leave the chair, etc. It is not a motion to adopt the resolution. However, under our present practice members have been debating it as if it were such a motion. The minister makes an affirmative statement, frequently going into details, with the Speaker in the chair, and other members follow. The result is that a full discussion of the resolution takes place at this stage. I am sure that Is not the procedure contemplated by standing order No. 60, nor is it in accordance with Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling, in which I concur.
After giving this matter my careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that if there is no objection to the consideration of the resolution in committee of the whole, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be put without debate. If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.
Accordingly in my opinion the practice of the minister opening the debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to consider in committee of the whole a resolution preceding a money bill should be discontinued.
When the discussion on this subject was before the house the other night a number of members expressed concern over the difficulty
Business of the House which the Speaker would have in keeping the debate within the limits of the above interpretation. I realize the difficulty but all I can do is to ask for the usual co-operation of all hon. members.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege just for the sake of fair play.
I notice that several papers have announced the proposed pension plan for members.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the reports were not fair. The plan has been under discussion for over two years and it is neither fair to members of the committee nor to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the newspapers have seen fit to report in the way they have. I was one of those who thought the Prime Minister was very cautious. Instead of having a spark of Irish in him, I thought he was a bit Scotch. He has proved to be cautious in the right way and this bill has not been rushed through. It is being sent to the committee on banking and commerce.
Thank you.



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved:: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the agreement for the promotion of safety on the great lakes by means of radio between Canada and the United States of America, signed at Ottawa, February 21, 1952, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I would like to table two copies of the agreement for the promotion of safety on the great lakes by means of radio. I understand the practice is to table those prior to discussion of the resolution.
The agreement referred to in the resolution has been under discussion and under consideration by Canada and the United States for some months. The purpose of the agreement is to provide for the safety of life on the great lakes by means of radiotelephone or the installation of radiotelephony equipment. This agreement will not come into force until two years after it has been ratified by both parties. It may be terminated after a period of five years, providing a notice of twelve months has been given. The agreement authorizes the use of radiotelephony as
3376	HOUSE OF
Promotion of Safety on Great Lakes a means of communication and for transmission of distress signals by ships on the great lakes, on the distress frequency of 2182 kilocycles and the continuance of the present working frequencies. It provides also for the compulsory installation of radiotelephone equipment on
(a)	All great lakes shipping of 500 gross tons and over.
(b)	All passenger carrying vessels over 65 feet in length.
(c)	On every vessel of less than 500 gross tons engaged in towing another vessel of 500 gross tons or over or any floating object having dimension of 150 feet or more, unless the towing vessel or object complies with the agreement.
The agreement further requires that a continuous listening watch be maintained on the distress frequency of 2182 kilocycles by all vessels that are subject to this agreement. It also stipulates that each government shall undertake to ensure that necessary arrangements are made for a listening watch by coast stations on that frequency. All of the provisions of the agreement apply to vessels subject thereto while they are being navigated on the great lakes or connecting channels such as the St. Mary's river, the St. Clair river, lake St. Clair, the Detroit river, the Welland ship canal and the river St. Lawrence as far east as the lower exit of the Lachine canal and the Victoria bridge at Montreal.
Provision is made in the agreement for the exclusion of various ships of war, such as destroyers, corvettes and the like, together with vessels in tow, vessels not self-propelled by mechanical means, government vessels not engaged in trade and certain others as specified in article 3. In general terms, as set forth in the preamble of the agreement, the purpose of the agreement is to promote safety of life and property on the great lakes of North America by means of radio, and especially to make provision for radiotelephone communication for safety purposes, including communication as an aid to navigation.
Basically, the agreement constitutes mutual recognition by the governments of the two countries that radiotelephony, which enables direct communication between vessels as well as from ship to shore, should be the primary means of promoting safety on the great lakes. Radiotelephony, as the house knows, is now used extensively and effectively on the great lakes as a means of aiding navigation and of securing assistance in time of distress. So far as radio is concerned, the great lakes presents specialized problems requiring special treatment based on local conditions. The peculiar requirements of the great lakes


have promoted a rapid development of ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore radio telephone communication. This has been a rapid and largely spontaneous development on the part of the shipping industry.
Technical regulations have been appended or annexed to the agreement which I tabled a moment ago, and it is provided in article 1 of the agreement that these regulations may be amended, as may be necessary, by agreement between the two governments. The house will have an opportunity of seeing the provisions of the agreement. I do not want to go into them at this stage in detail, but perhaps a general review will serve some purpose.
Article 1 of the agreement contains general provisions for the carrying out of the agreement and its applications to vessels of all countries.
Article 2 contains definitions of terms found in the agreement.
Article 3 defines the categories of vessels to which the agreement applies, and also those which are excluded from the application of the agreement.
Article 4 stipulates that a vessel which is not subject to the agreement does not become subject thereto due to stress of weather or force majeure.
Article 5 provides for the making of necessary arrangements for a listening watch by coast stations on the distress frequency.
Article 6 provides for exemption of vessels either partially, conditionally or completely from certain of the provisions of the agreement relating to technical operations.
Articles 7 to 14 inclusive contain provisions affecting technical operations, including those relating to operators, radiotelephone installation, vessel records, authority of the master, inspections and surveys, certification and privileges, issuance of certificate on request of responsible administration, and control.
Article 15 provides that the two governments, to the extent permitted by their respective constitutional procedures, will undertake to assist the vessels of other countries in meeting the requirements of the agreement.
Article 16 relates to the exchange of information respecting laws, regulations and reports.
Articles 17 and 18 provide for ratification, coming into force, duration and termination.
I should like to say just one word about the number of ships affected by this agreement. With respect to the number of vessels of Canadian registry which will be subject to the requirements of this agreement, I should like to point out that there are 221 cargo

vessels of 500 tons or over already fitted with radiotelephone and affected by this agreement, and 90 of those will require some improvement of their installations. This means that 131 vessels are now equipped with radiotelephony in accordance with the terms of the agreement. There are 19 passenger vessels over 65 feet in length affected by the agreement. Two require more up-to-date apparatus, and four will require to be fitted with the prescribed equipment. The very fact that so many operators voluntarily have equipped their vessels with radiotelephone installations is a clear indication of their preference for radiotelephony. It is considered the two-year period above-mentioned is ample time to permit adaptation to these regulations.
The implementation of this agreement will require an amendment to section 406 of the Canada Shipping Act, which is the governing section, to provide that ships subject to the agreement shall be fitted with a radiotelephone installation. It is the intention of the government to introduce at the next session of parliament an amendment to section 406 so as to make this provision of the agreement applicable. Perhaps here I could anticipate questions from the opposition as to whether or not this will be referred to a standing committee of the house. The government feels that that is not necessary at this time, in view of the statement which I have just made, because when the section is amended at the next session of parliament it will unquestionably be necessary to refer the whole of the agreement to a standing committee.
The obligations of the agreement will apply to ships on international voyages beginning or terminating on the great lakes or St. Lawrence river above Montreal, in addition to the obligations to which they are subject under the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The imposition of these additional obligations on ships in inland waters does not appear to conflict with the international safety convention. This agreement should work to the advantage of the safety convention ships using the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river above Montreal, as it will place at their disposal the extensive radiotelephone facilities which will be provided by coast stations and ships operating on the great lakes. Assistance will be given to foreign ships requiring such assistance by a depot established at Montreal where equipment will be available at low cost. It is expected that there will be only a minor demand for this equipment, inasmuch as vessels now plying on the great lakes from outside points are usually equipped with radiotelephone, or will be so equipped in the very near future with the adoption on a
Promotion of Safety on Great Lakes world-wide basis of the frequency of 2182 kilocycles for safety and distress radiotelephone communication.
The government has recognized for some time the need for an agreement with the United States dealing with the use of radio on the great lakes. This matter has been under consideration between the two countries for some years and the agreement which is the subject of this resolution has been carefully prepared by representatives of both countries. It has been received favourably by the shipping operators on the great lakes. The government considers that, if ratified by both countries, the agreement will be beneficial to shipping on the great lakes, and I recommend that approval of the resolution be given by this house.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition approve of this treaty primarily of course because it is to further the safety of life on the great lakes. In the ordinary course we believe it would have been wise to have the agreement considered by one of the committees of the house; but in view of the fact that the session is in its last stages and that the house is sitting such long hours we doubt whether anything would be gained by so doing. The minister did not give that reason for not referring the agreement to a committee; but perhaps if we put his reason and our reason together, we can agree that there should be no reference to a committee. However, since the matter is not to be referred to a committee I should like to place before the minister, on behalf of the official opposition, four or five questions in connection with this agreement, and I hope he will answer them when he closes the debate; or if there is no procedure for him to close the debate, perhaps the house would consent to have him deal with these particular questions.


Mr. Knowles:: It is a substantive motion.


Howard Charles Green: In the first place, article 3, subsection 2, clause (d) provides that all government vessels are exempt from the provisions of this agreement. That provision will apply not only to Canadian and United States government-owned vessels but also to vessels owned by any foreign government. We believe that these particular vessels should not be exempt. If the vessels are of the size which would call for compliance with the agreement if they are privately owned, then surely government vessels should at least be equipped in the same manner as the private vessels. Perhaps it is the intention that such should be the case. There does not seem to be any reason at all why government vessels should not comply with these provisions which are designed to promote the safety of life. Some vessels coming here
3378	HOUSE OF
Promotion of Safety on Great Lakes which belong to other countries will be owned by foreign governments. Certainly they should have to comply with the provisions.
Then I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that the exemptions contained in this agreement are extremely wide. We hope that the Canadian government will not take advantage of the power to give such wide exemptions. For example in article 3, subsection 2, there is a provision to the effect that where a vessel is not making more than two voyages on the great lakes in any one calendar year, she may be exempted from many of these provisions. It will still be necessary for that vessel to have what is called a safety radiotelephony certificate, and to meet the radio frequency requirements. But as I read this particular part of the agreement such a vessel can be exempted from having an officer or some official on the ship who is qualified, and from carrying out what are the most important requirements contained in the agreement.
In article 6 there are even wider exemptions. If the Department of Transport takes advantage of these powers practically any ship could be exempted. The first subsection of the article reads as follows:
Each contracting government, if it considers that the conditions of the voyage or voyages affecting safety, including but not necessarily limited to the regularity or frequency of the voyages, the route or routes, the maximum distance of the vessel from shore, the length of voyage or voyages, and the absence of general navigation hazards, or other circumstances,-
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that those specific cases are listed; but there is, in addition, the broad right to exempt to a wider degree. The article continues:
-are such as to render the full application of articles 7, 8, and 9, or any of them, of this agreement unreasonable or unnecessary, may exempt-
And here is the specific power given to the department.
-partially, conditionally, or completely from the provisions of articles 7, 8, and 9, or any of them, any individual vessel for one or more voyages or for any period of time not exceeding one year from the date of exemption.
We hope that little use will be made of those wide exemption powers. If that particular article is used extensively, there is a hole made in the agreement which would render it of comparatively little value. We should like to have from the minister a statement with regard to the policy of the government in granting these exemptions.
Then another question which is bothering us is the provision in article 7 of the agreement for compelling continuous effective listening. Subsection 1, clause (a) provides:
There shall be on board, as an officer or member of the crew of vessel, at least one person whose 

qualifications for radiotelephone operation for safety purposes on the great lakes have been certified by the contracting governments.
That provision, of course, is perfectly reasonable.


Lionel Chevrier: What article is the hon. member reading?


Howard Charles Green: Article 7, subsection 1, clause (a). Then clause (b) of the same subsection reads as follows:
From among those certified persons, the master shall designate one or more who shall operate the radiotelephone installation.
But it goes on to say this:
The duties of the persons so designated need not be restricted to duties in connection with the radiotelephone installation but may include any and all duties assigned them by the master.
In other words, the officer or member of the crew can be a freight checker, a purser, a steward or he can carry on any other duties on the vessel.
Then clause (c) goes even further. It reads:
Except when the radiotelephone installation is being used to transmit or receive on frequencies authorized for the maritime mobile service, there shall be continuous effective listening on the distress frequency by aural means by at least one officer or member of the crew who has been designated by the master to perform such listening.
Then we find this further sentence:
The person so designated by the master may simultaneously perform other duties relating to the operation or navigation of the vessel, provided that such other duties do not interfere with the effectiveness of the listening.
We have had difficulties on the west coast arising out of people having double jobs of that kind. There has been a considerable use of the radiotelephone on vessels, but the person who is supposed to be listening to the radiotelephone may have half a dozen other jobs to do; and even in the case of the radiotelegraph, that is the ordinary Marconi, we have had complaints of Marconi operators being put on other jobs, having to check the freight and look after various other duties, with the result that the radiotelegraph has not been properly watched, and there has been the same trouble with the radiotelephone.
Just a year or so ago we had an instance of a passenger vessel approaching the entrance to Vancouver harbour in a fog. It had a radiotelephone, and the operator on the First Narrows bridge was warning the vessel that it was running into the rocks; and yet, because there was nobody listening, no attention was paid to the warning and the vessel piled up on the rocks of Stanley park.
I should like to warn the minister that making provisions of this kind, whereby the

duties of the man responsible for the radiotelephone can be expanded to cover other different duties, is bound to mean that he pays just that much less attention to the radiotelephone, and the end result is that you greatly weaken your provision for safety of life on the great lakes. I hope that the department will give consideration to that feature when preparing the legislation which is to be submitted next year.
Article 5 provides that:
Each contracting government undertakes to ensure that necessary arrangements are made for a listening watch by coast stations on the distress frequency.
Obviously there is not a great deal of point in compelling ships to have radiotelephone if there are no proper stations on the shore with which they can communicate. We should like to know from the minister whether or not the Department of Transport is now in a position to provide the proper listening watches by coast stations? Will it mean the establishment of more coast stations than there are at the present time, or what is to be done by Canada to implement that particular article of the agreement?
Finally, I can find no provision in this agreement dealing with radiotelegraphy as distinguished from radiotelephony. I would have thought that the agreement would provide that radiotelegraph could be used as an alternative, but there seems to be no such provision. It is hoped that oceangoing vessels will come into the great lakes when the St. Lawrence waterway has been constructed. In all cases these ocean-going vessels will have radio operators. I would think that would be the position with practically all of the ocean-going freighters which would come into the great lakes. I believe that that eventuality should have been foreseen. We would hope that there will not be any removal of the safety provisions in connection with radio on these deep-sea vessels.
As the minister knows, there has been a good deal of complaint in British Columbia about the shipping companies trying to have regulations made so that they could use the radiotelephone instead of using the ordinary Marconi. Some of us who represent coastal ridings have felt that the lives of persons travelling on passenger vessels were being endangered because there were not sufficiently stringent regulations compelling the use of a Marconi operator, and we do not want to have any legislation passed by the Canadian government which would have the effect of making that situation worse even on the great lakes. When the minister closes the debate I would ask him to explain just 55704-214
Promotion of Safety on Great Lakes how the plans for radiotelephony fit in with the ordinary Marconi.
There may be other points which have come to the attention of other opposition parties. We have had this agreement only a short time and there has not been a great deal of opportunity for study. I would ask the minister to deal with these questions which I have raised.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: The
hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has I think covered the ground pretty well. The questions that he asked of the minister are ones that should be answered. Just as the hon. member says, we have had this agreement so recently in our hands that very little study had been given to it by myself, as a matter of fact, and I have not been back in the house except for the last few days. However, I endorse what he has said regarding the necessity of having competent people on board the lake ships who will be able to take any messages that come to the ship at any time.
Another important matter is that someone among the personnel aboard the ship, whether it be on the lakes, on the Pacific coast or on the Atlantic coast, wherever passengers are carried, should be competent to repair any break-down of the apparatus. I think that is a very important matter. I was on a ship off the Pacific coast a year or two ago, and I found that on most of the ships, while the radar was in operation, there was no one competent to make even a minor repair if anything went wrong with the apparatus. What is true of radar of course is even more true regarding the radiotelephone system. Anything that we can do by way of legislation and regulations to prevent the loss of life at sea, apart altogether from the loss of property involved, we should do in this house. I welcome the agreement. We have had several very serious disasters in the last few years which have given something of a black eye to our shipping on the great lakes as well as in our coastal waters. The more we do in the way of regulation and subsequent legislation to ensure absolute safety-radiotelegraph, Marconi, radar, or whatever it may be -the better it will be for our own shipping interests and for the good name of the country in which we live.
All I wish to say is that we join in supporting the agreement; and we hope that when further amendments are made to the statutes consideration will be given to some of the matters that have arisen and are not covered by this agreement.


Mr.  W. Chesier S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call to the attention
3380	HOUSE OF
Promotion of Safety on Great Lakes of the minister, before this resolution becomes effective, that we have similar problems on the coastal range of the Atlantic. I would mention particularly Northumberland strait. Why could not this provision be made applicable to the Atlantic as well as to the great lakes service?
On several occasions lately I have discussed with the minister the matter of coastguard protection in the Atlantic region. When this resolution is going through, I am wondering why some further protection could not be given to our ships and sailors on the Atlantic seaboard, as well.


Mr. A. W. Sluari (Charloiie):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the type of equipment to which reference is made in this resolution is the same as that used along the Atlantic coast line. I would say however that in my opinion radiotelephone has been of greater assistance to boatmen on the Atlantic coast line than any other improvement in the last fifty years.
When the minister points out that this is an international agreement, I am reminded of the period of time during the war when it was found necessary to discontinue this service. In other words, boats that had been equipped with radiotelephone were obliged to remove that equipment during wartime, and it was of course costly equipment.
In the section from which I come both Canadian and American boats are plying those waters. I would say without fear of successful contradiction that two-thirds of the boats there, even those fifty feet in length, are today equipped with radiotelephones, and it is the greatest convenience one could imagine for those who operate the boats. The radiotelephone service is installed usually by the owners of the freighters and carriers. I would point out however that today many of our individual fishermen have installed a similar service.
Approaching the matter from its international aspect, I would point out that today even taxicabs operating along the international border must disconnect their radiotelephone equipment upon crossing the border, and upon returning it is connected again. This is a great nuisance to those who are operating taxis.
I believe the minister's suggestion is one that will be endorsed by all those who have knowledge of conditions on the water. We know that radiotelephone is a great convenience. I cannot see however that the services of a full-time operator would be necessary. I have said that I am not fully aware that the equipment here indicated is exactly the same as that used along the


Atlantic coast line, but in what I am saying I am taking it for granted that this is so. In those circumstances I think it is not necessary at any time to have a full-time operator. This involves an additional cost for boat owners who are operating under conditions of great expense today, and who must pay high wages.
I support the resolution because I believe any type of radiotelephone connection is helpful in any area where it can be provided.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: If the
minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understand I am not in order in speaking at this time. If I could have permission of the house I should like to deal with some of the objections raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a substantive motion, and the minister has the right.


Mr. Pouliot:: You are always in order.


Mr. Graydon:: And you are among friends.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not so sure about the last statement.
I am most grateful to the house for the manner in which the debate has taken place. I have listened with interest to the general approval given to the agreement signed by Canada and the United States, subject of course to certain apparent deficiencies, as they have been pointed out by hon. members who have taken part in the discussion.
The object and purpose of the agreement is of course an excellent one, and this was made particularly evident in the remarks of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) who made special reference to the beneficial effects of radiotelephone in certain areas.
I believe there can be no doubt that in the minds of a great majority of those using the great lakes, radiotelephone is more efficient than radiotelegraph when operating within a restricted area. That is why I think there must be general agreement as to the purpose and object of this agreement signed between Canada and the United States. Radiotelegraph has of course a greater range, and unquestionably can do a better job on inter-[DOT] national voyages. But within the area covered by this agreement I do not think there is any doubt about the superiority of radiotelephone over radiotelegraph communication. That, at least, seems to be the opinion of the experts.
Turning now to the questions that have arisen, I need not say to the house that when an agreement of this kind has been under

negotiation for several years it must of necessity have been arrived at by compromise. There are many things in the agreement we would have liked to see otherwise; but in our anxiety to reach a decision as to the mandatory installation of telephone equipment on our ships on the great lakes, we did consent to certain compromises.
That is the general answer I would make to some of the objections raised. And, dealing more particularly with those objections, we hear the question asked as to why government vessels are exempt. Our view was that they should not have been exempt. We felt all along that there should have been application of these regulations to our vessels.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is referring to government vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. However, the other party to the agreement thought otherwise. As a matter of fact I do not think it makes any difference because I can say now that the vast majority if not all of the government vessels operating on the great lakes are today equipped with radiotelephone facilities.
Then there was the suggestion that there are too many exemptions. In article 3 there are exemptions for certain ships, provided they do not make more than two voyages. In article 6 there is a general policy of exemption covering a wider field. It has been asked what the policy of the government is with reference to these additional exemptions. My answer to that is that the Canada Shipping Act, the international convention for the safety of life at sea and this agreement all make provision for certain exemptions. In fact in the Canada Shipping Act there are a number of sections giving the minister discretion, after recommendation from the board of steamship inspection, to grant exemptions. I think there should be exemptions for both parties because I can visualize a number of cases that might well arise when, if it were not possible to grant an exemption, it would be altogether impossible for the ship to go to sea. I can think, for instance, of exemptions now granted under the Canada Shipping Act in cases where the operator of a ship has no qualified mate or an engineer, and consequently would not be able to proceed and his whole operation is held up. There is provision in the act for that kind of exemption.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not thinking of the Ming Sung ships, is he?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I was not thinking of them at this time although I believe that the exemptions in that case were wisely given. They may not have turned out as my hon. friend and I would have wished but I am 55704-2141
Promotion of Safety on Great Lakes still hopeful that notwithstanding the present position it will be possible to recoup a substantial amount of our money involved in those operations. I should like to get back to the exemptions with which I was dealing. It is not the intention of the government to use its discretion widely in granting such exemptions. I should not like to be tied down to what I say now, but I will say that on the contrary our intention is to exempt some ferries and perhaps also in some cases to reduce the power of equipment. Again I should not like to be tied down to this statement, but I will also say that beyond that I cannot visualize any general exercise of the discretionary powers by way of exemption.
I was also asked about the article governing coast station listening watches, how they are operating, is there a sufficient number in operation and will more have to be established. No greater number of listening posts will have to be established than are now in operation. As a matter of fact these listening posts have been in operation since 1938, I believe it is. They are effective and efficient, and we do not think it will be necessary to add to their number. We think that those existing now on the great lakes at places such as Kingston, Toronto, Port Burwell, Point Edward, Midland, Sault Ste. Marie and Port Arthur are sufficient to look after the operation of shipping on the great lakes at least on our side of the boundary line.
I was asked to differentiate between radiotelephone and radiotelegraph operations and to say why there is no provision here for radiotelegraph. I think I anticipated the answer in my opening remarks when I said that radiotelephone is more effective in a shorter range. The reason why radiotelegraph is excluded entirely from the operation of this agreement is that the range of radiotelephone is all that is required for the protection of life and property within the area of the great lakes. The law as it now stands is found in section 406 (2) (a) of the Canada Shipping Act which provides for the installation of radiotelegraph equipment on certain vessels. For instance the act requires passenger steamships to carry radiotelegraph apparatus and a radio operator when they fall within one of the three following categories, namely, (1) carrying fifty or more persons and going on a voyage of more than 200 nautical miles; (2) carrying 250 or more persons: and going on a voyage of more than 90 nautical miles; and (3) carrying 500 or more persons and going on a voyage of more than 20 nautical miles.
In addition, there is provision in section 406 (2) (b) covering the requirements for cargo vessels of 5,000 gross tons and over. They have to carry radiotelegraph apparatus and a radio operator on voyages of more than 200
3382	HOUSE OF
Promotion of Safety on Great Lakes nautical miles. The law as it exists now is covered in those two sections. Then of course there is the international convention for the safety of life at sea which excludes the great lakes.


Howard Charles Green: Includes or excludes?


Lionel Chevrier: Excludes the great lakes. Therefore this agreement with reference to the compulsory installation of radiotelephone equipment will be restricted to the area of the great lakes as far east as the lower exit of the Lachine canal. Any ships travelling beyond the great lakes into the gulf of St. Lawrence and from there into the ocean, or vice versa, will be subject not only to this agreement but also to the international convention for the safety of life at sea which requires the installation of radiotelegraph equipment. That is the distinction which exists between the radiotelegraph and the radiotelephone and the reason why radiotelegraph is not included in the agreement.
Some objection was raised on the ground that it is not a good thing to allow an operator to do more than one job. It was said that it was not a good thing to have a man carry on as a boatswain, a mate or an assistant mate and at the same time listen to the telephone. I think the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) covered that. I do not know if my hon. friend has been on these ships when they are in operation. I have on a number of occasions, and I think the procedure is simple and one which works out quite satisfactorily. The loudspeaker is on the bridge and is tuned in to the frequency of 2182 kilocycles. There are always two if not more persons on the bridge, the master and a couple of mates. With that frequency tuned in it is a very simple thing for a man to listen to the radiotelephone and at the same time carry on his duties as mate, assistant mate or second assistant mate.
I have seen it done frequently in the summer months and I think it operates efficiently. There is no doubt but that the two parties to this agreement thought so, and I am sure they came to that conclusion because of the experience their nationals have had over the years. Some question was raised whether this agreement is applicable to the Atlantic region. The treaty covers the great lakes and the operation of ships between Canada and the United States. It is not made applicable to the Atlantic region. What is applicable to the Atlantic region is sections 406 (2) (a) and 406 (2) (b) of the Canada Shipping Act which require the installation of radiotelegraph equipment and the operation of that equipment. A good many ships now operating in that area have radiotelephone.


It is not mandatory but they have it over and above the radiotelegraph equipment. That position will be covered by an amendment to section 406 of the act which it is proposed to bring in at the next session of parliament when we implement this agreement.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Might I ask the minister a question? When you speak of radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, would it not be necessary with radiotelegraph to have trained and experienced operators, whereas with radiotelephone any officer of the ship could operate?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, my hon. friend is quite right in that assumption. I do not know that I can add much more to this because, as I indicated earlier, there will be full opportunity to discuss the terms of this agreement when the amendment to section 406 of the Canada Shipping Act is brought in at the next session of parliament. I here state that I will introduce that amendment and I take it that in the usual course it will be referred to the appropriate committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to ask a question of the minister. What is the tonnage of the boats that will be affected by this agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: Earlier I indicated that there were three groups of ships affected. They are set out in article 3:
(a)	Every vessel of 500 gross tons or over.
(b)	Every passenger carrying vessel over 65 feet in length . . .
(c)	Every vessel under 500 gross tons engaged in towing another vessel of 500 gross tons . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Is it
the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May
I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Has he received any reply to the representations that were made to Washington regarding the sending of Canadian troops to Koje island and their duties there? If so, would he make a statement?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of Slate for Exlernal Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a reply was received by the department this morning.
I have not had a chance to give it consideration and I would not want to say anything at the moment. I may be able to make a statement tomorrow or the next day when my estimates are before the house.



GERM WARFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I am sorry I was not able to give him notice, but that is due to the fact the literature only arrived on the desks of the members of this house today from a peace movement headed by Dr. Endicott. This literature states that 10,000 people assembled in Massey Hall were given proof of the use of poisonous gas and germ warfare by the United Nations troops, troops that are associated with our Canadian unit. This cancerous, termite group is able to address 10,000 people in Massey Hall-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Order, that is not a question, it is a speech.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: What procedure is the
government going to adopt-I am making it, not you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: May I
request the hon. member to ask his question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I was asking the question when I was rudely interrupted. The question is: In view of this literature which has been distributed throughout this House of Commons, and I presume the Senate, is the government in a position to make a statement as to what steps they are taking to stop this seditious literature that is being circulated throughout Canada? What steps are we taking to stop this kind of cancerous condition that exists in Canada today, and should be stopped?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The hon. member not having given me notice of his question, Mr. Speaker, I shall take his question as notice and bring down an answer.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Have the officials of the Department of Fisheries received from the Prince Edward Island fisheries federation an urgent request for the extension of the lobster fishing season to July 12, 1952?
If so, has this been granted?
While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a second question to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew):	In view of
the very heavy losses in lobster fishing gear, namely traps and equipment, due to ice conditions in May and at a later date to very
Inquiries of the Ministry heavy storms, will the department now give consideration and financial assistance to compensate for losses of the north shore and south shore fishermen in Prince Edward Island?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of both questions and I will endeavour to answer them.
As far as the first one is concerned, regarding the extension of the lobster fishing season to July 12, it is apparently an urgent matter. The department has received wires about it and I think that all other maritime members and senators have received similar wires. I can assure the hon. member that this matter is being considered at the present time. We have made inquiry from our inspector there to see if the request for extension is justified. The request is based on the fact that there has been bad weather and also that there were losses of gear earlier in the season.
On the second question, the policy of the government in such matters has been that they consider it a matter of relief. If it is of a nature or kind beyond the competence or capacity of the provincial government to deal with, that government may come to the federal government and ask for assistance. On the basis of the request and the size of the undertaking the government will decide whether or not assistance will be granted. Up to the present time the government of Prince Edward Island has not made application to us for assistance.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: May I ask the
minister when he would expect a decision with respect to the extension of the season? What affects the spring season in Prince Edward Island applies equally to the spring season on the north shore of Nova Scotia and Northumberland strait.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no request has come to the department from the fishermen in that area but may I suggest that I take this as notice and tomorrow morning on my estimates I will be pleased to answer any of these questions.



COMMISSION MEETING FOR NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he plan to have a representative of his department at the annual meeting of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries being held at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, from June 30 to July 9, 1952?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. Because the conference will be concerned largely with scientific matters relating to fisheries, the Department of External Affairs will not be represented at the second annual meeting of this commission. Canada, however, will be represented by the three Canadian commissioners, Dr. Bates, the deputy minister of fisheries, Mr. R. Gushue and Mr. Howard MacKichan. The commissioners will be assisted by Dr. Needier and other scientific advisers from the Department of Fisheries.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY UNITED STATES ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: In view of the fact that word has just been received that the United States senate has sent the St. Lawrence seaway bill back to committee, I understand on a vote of 43 to 40-which would appear to kill it until the 1953 session of congress-may I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) what significance and effect that decision of the United States senate will have on our own plans for proceeding with the waterway?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should think it would have little or no effect at all on the present negotiations which are going on between Canada and the United States with reference to the project which we have had in mind. By that I mean that even when the matter was before the United States congress negotiations had been started, following the talk which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had with the President of the United States in September of last year, to prepare for a joint application before the international joint commission. That application is proceeding satisfactorily. It has reached a stage where it should be possible to go before the international joint commission; so that the decision of congress should not interfere in the slightest with the intention of Canada to proceed with its own development of the seaway on Canada's side of the boundary and also to proceed before the international joint commission with the concurrence of the United States, in so far as the development of power is concerned.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the minister that this country has given the United States a pretty long time to make up their minds in connection with this matter and it would seem to me that as far as their participation is concerned we had better go ahead with this job alone rather than bother with their intervention at all.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to ask the
minister this. He said that the application has reached the stage where it will be possible to make the joint application. Does the minister mean that the application is going to be made forthwith?


Lionel Chevrier: We are proceeding along
those lines now.
My hon. friend will remember that the legislation introduced at the last session covered both alternatives. If congress had approved we would have proceeded along the lines of the 1941 agreement. If they had not, we would avail ourselves of the alternative procedure, and make application before the international joint commission.


Major James William Coldwell: It was the phrasing of the minister's reply that I wanted clarified.


Gordon Graydon: The decision of the senate this morning does not mean that concurrence will not be forthcoming with respect to the application to the international joint commission? This' only concerns the question of their financial participation in the scheme?


Lionel Chevrier: They are two different
projects altogether.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 308, an act to revise the capital structure of the Canadian National Railway Company and to provide for certain other financial matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not insist, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that we have not received the printed copy of the evidence taken at the sitting of the committee last Tuesday, June 10, but we will examine the first section of this bill. I have some facts to lay before the house to make the committee better acquainted with this piece of legislation.
In the first place, I must say that there is some confusion in the finances of the Canadian National Railways, because there is only one man in Canada or in the world who can explain it. You and I, Mr. Chairman, cannot explain it. The leaders of the parties in the house cannot explain it, either. The minister cannot explain it. The official critic of the opposition and all the gentlemen who are interested in figures cannot explain

it. Who said that? The president and chairman of the railway at page 155 of the report of April 29. Mr. Fulton had asked a question and then Mr. Gordon said:
The only man in Canada or in the world who can explain that is Mr. Cooper.
I am not surprised. I knew that.


Lionel Chevrier: He corrected that afterwards.


Mr. Fraser:: He corrected that statement at the last meeting of that committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, perhaps, but this was the voice of the heart.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: He corrected it, because I asked him and he corrected it.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right; something was known in the meantime, but it is right here and the hon. member knows that it is right here. I do not repeat that statement as my own. I quote faithfully a statement that has been made by the president and chairman of the Canadian National Railways in a meeting of the railways and shipping committee. That statement explains a lot. It throws a vivid light on the whole financial structure of the Canadian National Railways.
Now, sir, I was very much interested to know if there was some co-operation between the board of directors and the management concerning the procedure to approve the financing of the railway. I insisted on having the bylaws, and on knowing how the gentlemen who represent the government of Canada on the board of directors manage that railway, and consequently how the decisions are arrived at:	In the first place
I asked for the bylaws in virtue of chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1927. On May 26 the minister told me they were old bylaws passed at the time of Sir Henry Thornton. They existed. He told me that he would be ready to give them to me for my information. I thanked him. I accepted them. The other day the house did not want me to put them on the record; and for the punishment of the house I will not read them; it is a sanction. The curiosity of hon. members will not be satisfied, if they have any.
But afterwards chapter 172 was amended in 1928, 1929 and 1931 by statutes that everybody knows. Then I asked for the production of the bylaws passed in virtue of chapter 172 as amended. Owing to the change of times and the turning of the earth, I thought there would be new regulations in virtue of the Canadian National Railways Act as amended. The minister told me that there were bylaws passed not in virtue of the Canadian National
Canadian National Railways Railways Act, chapter 172, but in virtue of the general Railway Act, chapter 170. On June 10 I asked the chairman and president what those regulations were; he told me that there were none except for some providing for cuspidors, for notifying the passengers on trains not to play poker, and things of such importance. There were no regulations. I am sorry I have not the printed copy of the report here, because I would quote it verbatim; but my memory is good enough to recall what happened on Tuesday last. At the present time therefore there are no regulations such as there were at the time of Sir Henry Thornton in order to have some order in the dealings of the board of directors with the management and also with the financing of the company. It is not a success. When I say that I have only praise for the Minister of Transport, for the staff of his department and also for many officials of the railway who are nice fellows and who are easier to deal with than are some others.
I now come to the matter of the finances of the Canadian National Railways. The gifts acknowledged to have been made to the railway by the Canadian government may not amount to $4J billion-"b" for "boy"-^but they amount to at least $2 billion in 15 years. My authority for that statement is chapter 22 of the statutes of 1937 which quotes the exact amount of the debts of the Canadian National Railways which have been cancelled, and gives the figure of $1,218,642,195.27. Besides that I have also the authority of the minister himself as reported at page 3067 of Hansard to this effect:
My hon. friend-
Referring to me.
-said the total amount involved in this measure was $1,400 million by way of relief. That is not so. The amount under this bill, as I said earlier, is $736 million.
"M" for "Mary" or "Moses". If we add together $1,218 million and $736 million, we have that figure of $2 billion which is the minimum of the gifts that have been made to the Canadian National Railways. That is something which is worth considering. I am surprised that so many members of the opposition were quick to come to the rescue of the president and chairman when I quoted faithfully the remark that had been printed in the official report. Again I made the distinction that I made on June 6 with regard to the answer to questions, by Canadian National Railways, about the financing of that railway. On June 2 I was answered thus by the Canadian National Railways and their answer was conveyed to the house by the minister. The first question was:
1.	Since 1923, what has been the total yearly amount of (a) advances and loans made; (b) guarantees given, by the government to the Canadian National Railways?
3386	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
The answer was:
1.	Financing for the Canadian National Railways has in each year since 1923 received consideration and approval by the government and is recorded in the statutes.
I know that quite well; but I have the right to get that information from the Canadian National Railways. I am not surrounded by statisticians who can do that research for me. I do my own work. We must have some co-operation in order to know what is going on. The second question was:
2.	Since that date, what amount of the debt of the Canadian National Railways has been written off by the Canadian government?
The answer was:
2.	See answer to No. 1.
That is a fine answer. The third question
was:
3.	Since 1923 what amounts have been spent in each province by the Canadian National (a) for the construction, maintenance and repair of the railway; (b) as capital expenditure for the construction, extension and installation of machinery in each of the erecting shops of the Canadian National?
The answer was:
3.	(a) The accounts of the Canadian National Railways are not maintained in a way which makes it possible to segregate expenditures in the tabulation requested.
(b) To endeavour to give this information would involve an examination of accounting records for the past thirty years and this could not be undertaken by the existing staff of the railway.
I thought it bold of them to take that high-hat attitude with the government. I was one who years ago fought to have some light thrown on the railways' business. Then everything was a mystery. We could not know anything. When we ask for information, they say what they want to say. They are not under oath. What is the use of having committees of this house sitting to hear witnesses who are not under oath? Is any witness in court or before any tribunal insulted when the clerk of the court hands him the Bible and asks him to take an oath on it? Nobody is insulted. It is a matter of course. The witnesses are supposed to take an oath, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. How is it that a practice has arisen, and has existed for a number of years, that when committees of the House of Commons hear witnesses who make most important statements they do not take the oath? Is there any insult in taking the oath? It is the common practice; otherwise the tribunals would not be worth anything; nobody could rely on the wisdom and fairness of judgments if the witnesses were not called to take the oath. There is no insult in that.
[Mr. Pouliot.l

Such extraordinary statements have been made by some witnesses before the railways and shipping committee that I have enough respect for them to say I am sure they would never have dared to make them under oath. We take it for granted, and some people may find it extraordinary that I express sincerely my views before this committee of the House of Commons to make the people and the press of the country at large think of the aura of irresponsibility of the witnesses who come before the committees to tell tales, tell stories, bedtime stories.
I say to you, sir, that the reply from the Canadian National Railways was highly unsatisfactory, and it is an insult to the House of Commons. I protest strongly against the high-hat attitude of the president of the Canadian National Railways in that respect. Whoever sent that answer, it was under his authority.
Now, coming to more pleasant matters: the Canadian National Railways has refused to answer my question which was legitimate and pertinent. They could not do it. It is not surprising. There is only one genius there, Mr. Cooper, who knows everything. He is a Pic de la Mirandole, a genius, knows everything. Hon. members may get a mouthful of him before the committee but when they start to squeeze him they learn there is nothing to it. What is refreshing is the answer of the Department of Finance to another question that I asked, and which was given in a return on June 11. I asked:
Did the cancellation of capital stocks and certain indebtedness of the Canadian National Railway system to His Majesty, in virtue of chapter 22 of 1 George VI (1937), amount to more than $1,200 million, and what was the exact amount of that cancellation?
I gave it a moment ago; it is $1,218 million. There is a little explanation in the answer. It is satisfactory. My second question was:
What was the total amount of the Canadian National Railway system securities held by the Canadian government at various times since 1923?
I have the whole list. In 1923 it was $576 million; in 1936, it was $721 million. In 1937 it fell down to $79,252,000, obviously because of the cancelling legislation of that year. Then it went up, and in 1949 it was $743 million. In 1950, it was $739 million and in 1951, $857 million. The amount of the securities held by the securities trust of the Canadian National Railways increased. The third question was:
What amounts have been loaned or advanced to the Canadian National Railways system in virtue of the Canadian National Railways financing acts of 1934, 1935, 1937, 1940, 1940-1941, 1942, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1951 second session?
It is all given, the total amount advanced, the amount of deficit charged to expenditures

and so on. In one year it was $48 million, and in another year, $47 million. What strikes me is the way it reads. For instance, in 1934 we get:
Total amount advanced	 $59,157,510.17
Amount of deficit charged
to expenditure	 $48,407,900.70
Amount repaid	 10,749,609.47
59,157,510.17
Amount remaining unpaid	 nil
It is like that for many years, for 1937, for 1940, 1941 and 1942. Why? And there are small amounts remaining unpaid, but the total amount that has been fixed up by this legislation is $1,500 million.
Then there were other questions about the loans. The legislation concerning the Canadian National Railways is a kind of maze. It is included in so many statutes that they would form a whole library. But what interested me in that legislation, and I am not to object to it because I am a C.N.R. man inasmuch as the Canadian National Railways are more respectful of parliament and are more cooperative with the government, is that there should be some control of that. When one of the vice-presidents, Mr. Fairweather, appeared before the committee on railways and shipping on May 14, in connection with the Kitimat railway project, I asked him what percentage the province of Quebec had received from the tremendous amounts of money that have been earned by the Canadian National Railways and voted to them by parliament. The answer to the question was given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on May 15, as it appears at page 2226 of Hansard. That answer indicates that the province of Quebec has the smallest mileage per thousand of inhabitants, and the second lowest mileage per thousand square miles of land area.
Quebec has not been dealt with as it should have been, and by the Canadian National Railways in particular. We have evidence of it-


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I must point out that we are dealing here with a measure connected with the refinancing of the Canadian National Railways. My hon. friend has been referring to a number of matters that I suggest are not germane to the discussion at all. I cannot see how railway lines in the province of Quebec have anything to do with the section now before us.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the minister may be perfectly right in saying that, but the province of Quebec has not benefited at all from the huge sums of money voted by parliament to the Canadian National Railways.
Canadian National Railways However I am ready to co-operate, and I shall not insist.


Lionel Chevrier: That is an inaccurate statement, and I certainly cannot allow it to go without challenge. However, I have raised a point of order, and I would ask for a ruling upon it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am ready to co-operate with the minister, even when he raises points of order which are groundless. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that it is very easy for the minister to say that what I have stated has no relation to the bill, but it is even easier to say that if his request is granted I shall be able to prove that it has a direct relationship with the bill. However, I shall not insist upon proceeding; I have already made my case.
To conclude my remarks about the refinancing of the railways, I will say again to the minister that I am one of his most solid supporters, and I shall not insist upon discussing the matter further-and he knows it. On the other hand I do not want him to have to suffer unfair criticism from people who may hold him responsible for what is being done wrongly by the management of the railways.
This is a big piece of business. However, my memory serves me well enough to quote, in conclusion, the answer given by the president and chairman of the board to a question I asked him in committee. My question was about the purchase of shares of stock by the government. That stock was to carry interest at a rate of 4 per cent, I presume.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. Do I understand the hon. member is concluding his remarks? I am forced to advise him that the time at his disposal has expired.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. I shall be very brief. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure you will see that in what I shall say I am strictly in order.
On that occasion I asked Mr. Gordon if the purpose of the provision whereby the government would buy a certain amount of stock from the railways was not to prevent the railways from being in the red, and showing a deficit. He answered affirmatively. Therefore, sir, my case is complete. Before I had all the information I now have, I stated in the house that the purpose of the legislation was to write red entries in black ink. I have now concluded my evidence, which is final. I hope, on the other hand, that the concession being made by parliament to the Canadian National Railways will serve a better purpose than what has been done for them in the past.
3388	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood): Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Temiscouata. Perhaps no part of it held as great interest as did the last, in which he assured us that his speech had been designed to help the Canadian National Railways and the minister. Perhaps as it is now within two minutes of the adjournment hour, I might be permitted to resume at three o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, when the committee took recess I was just about to make some comments on this bill to revise the capital structure of the Canadian National Railway Company. This matter was debated at some length in the house. The bill has also been before the special committee, and there is no need for me to occupy much time. However, I should like to say a few things partly for the sake of getting them on the record, and there are one or two quotations I wish to give from the proceedings of the committee.
First of all I want to remind this committee, as has been said before, of the fact that this is a problem which has been before us for many years and the reasons for which we know. Shortly after the first great war it became necessary to amalgamate into one railway system several lines which had been privately owned and several lines which had been publicly owned, and which had the one common feature that they were all in difficulties. The railway was put together first of all in a rather haphazard manner, perhaps the best that could be done in the circumstances, and in the early 1920's just after this had been done there was a period of great doubt, anxiety and scepticism in the public mind whether the situation could continue or whether we might have to amalgamate all our railways into one unit. Most of us in the house are very glad that was not done because we dislike monopolies, even that strange creation called a democratic monopoly which is so dear to some members of the house, and which I always find it difficult to understand.
At any rate, that situation continued until the 1930's, which of course was a period of fresh difficulty. At that time the Duff commission was appointed and I should like to read a short extract from the report of that very able commission for the purpose of putting it on the record and also because it endorses the necessity of what is being done in this measure besides containing
[Mr. Pouliot.l

a warning which I think it is useful for us to remember. At page 30 of the report of the Duff commission I find the following:
. . . this commission is of opinion that it must be frankly recognized that a very substantial part of the money invested in the railways comprised within the Canadian National system must be regarded as lost and that its capital liabilities should be heavily written down . . .
That was the statement made by the Duff commission, but they did not regard that period of great economic distress as a desirable time to readjust the capital structure. I also wish to refer to another passage in the report of the Duff commission where they say that reasonable protection should be given to the privately-owned undertaking against arbitrary action by the publicly-owned undertaking which might unfairly prejudice the interests of the privately-owned undertaking.
On that score I should merely like to comment that when the two railways appeared before the Turgeon commission there was welcome evidence of good feeling and understanding along with healthy rivalry and competition and sympathy for each other's difficulties and problems. Mainly as a result of the report of the Duff commission we have the two railways and we have this healthy competition which has been greatly to our advantage and has provided us with two railway systems which I think can be regarded as admirable.
I should also like to refer to the measure of relief that was given in 1937 when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, then minister of transport, recommended to the house that a very large measure of relief be given, something over $1 billion, and that was in fact done. Finally we have the report of the Turgeon commission which recommended various further easements. I I was going to say that they are comprehended in this bill but it would be more accurate to say that the government's decision, based on the Turgeon report, as to v/hat it recommends to the house is in this bill.
The bill has been before the committee. There is little need of my talking at length about it. As I shall indicate in a moment, the bill is believed to carry out the immediate objective. The disappointing thing about it, perhaps inevitably disappointing, is that I did not feel-I do not think anyone will disagree with this statement-that the railway or the department was able to tell us they felt sure that they had found a principle of action which enabled them to assure us that this second major operation on the finances of the railway would be the final operation. However, they felt that it was beneficial and

that it could be brought forward and recommended to the house. I think it is of interest to read briefly what the president of the railway, Mr. Gordon, said about it. I am referring to the evidence Mr. Gordon gave before the committee.


Mr. Blackmore:: Would the hon. member tell us what date that was?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The committee met on June 10. This is merely the typewritten copy, so the paging may not be of significance when it is printed. However I should like to read the following statement of Mr. Gordon from page B-6 of the typewritten copy:
When we made our submission to the royal commission, as I said in my statement, I based it on the opinion, after analysis, that we needed relief, that is, that the Canadian National needed relief in the form of fixed interest charges of roughly $30 million a year. What I am saying about this bill is that it means that the actual relief that we get by the transfer of this $736 million into 4 per cent preferred stock would relieve us of fixed interest charges, plus the adjustments that we get in connection with the $100 million on behalf of Newfoundland, plus this arrangement in section 6, to give us an amount of equity capital each year, plus the prairie adjustment; so that when you put all of those together, you get the effect which in essence is the equivalent of $30 million a year relief. It is not exactly the same in form, but it is the same in quantum of relief, and it is in a better form in our opinion.
I read that because I think it is of importance to know whether the man who is primarily responsible for the operation of the railway did in fact feel that the measure before us would give the relief which is necessary.
As I indicated, there are some things which are disappointing. It would have been more satisfactory if we had been able to discern a principle in the amount of relief that was given, but I think the only principle you can find is that those responsible felt that a certain relief was needed and they took the means by one device and another to make up to the total amount of relief desired.
The other comments I wish to make can come up as we reach the appropriate sections of the bill, with the exception of one point. There is one comment I wish to make on a matter that seems to me to be of some importance. It arose before the committee and I hope it is relevant and proper to raise it here. I refer to the directors of the Canadian National Railways.
The directors of the Canadian National Railways are outstanding citizens, and nothing I say is intended to reflect or criticize them in the slightest possible degree. However, this I will say. I feel that with advantage to the railway the board might be enlarged. That suggestion is put by some on
Canadian National Railways a geographical basis, that we should have all parts of the country represented from a geographical point of view. Personally I am not so concerned with that. I think it is more desirable to have a good man from British Columbia than a bad man from Ontario; but I feel ever so strongly that in the tremendous task which has been assigned to Mr. Gordon, for whom I have the highest respect, he needs the assistance of all the ability he can get. Do not misunderstand me, I do not believe myself that directors run a railway company. I know they do not and they should not. Nevertheless, if you look at the Canadian Pacific Railway you will find they have a large board. Secondly, you will find an extraordinary percentage of men holding key business positions. The advantage is that those men, even though they may meet very seldom, and even though they do not try to interfere with management-which they should not do

make available their advice. It is the advice of a large group of the ablest businessmen in the country. I am very confident that if Mr. Gordon were standing here now, and he were asked whether he would like to have the best information from the widest variety of sources, he would agree.
Let me say again that nothing I have said is intended to cast the slightest criticism on the members of the board. I have the highest regard for those whom I know. My suggestion is that the board might be added to, giving new resources of experience and knowledge, imagination and all the things needed to assist in running this enterprise. I suppose it is by far the greatest enterprise we have in Canada, and I make my suggestion in the hope that the minister may find it possible to consider it. It is not original anf it was made at the time of the committee sittings, but I make it again in order that it may be on the record.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall section 1
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Minister to release national company jrom claims by Her Majesty.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: On clause 3 I wish to raise the point that we are creating a huge amount of capital-$736 million of capital or, as it is sometimes called, equity. Later on the common stock is referred to in one of the clauses as having a value of $396 million, so that altogether we are setting up a company which, if you look at the balance sheet, will be presumed to have a value after all its debts of something well over $1 billion. I might point out that this is one place where the government has departed from the tenor

Canadian National Railways of the principles of the Turgeon report because that report suggested that the relief to be given to the railway, instead of taking the form of a transfer of the indebtedness into stock, which of course is only a charge on the railway to the extent that it earns dividends, should be turned into what are called income bonds, that is to say into securities which represent a debt and which constitute a mortgage, but on which interest is only paid if and when it is earned.
I put that up to the committee and my point was not accepted so I do not press it further. However, I think it might be of interest to read Mr. Gordon's comments on it. His was an optimistic comment and I found it interesting, as perhaps others will find it interesting. I read from page 4 of the same evidence:
. . . the management expected that the Canadian National, on the average, will be able to provide out of its own earnings-
May I digress here just to say that a few minutes ago I read a statement by Mr. Gordon indicating that the relief they would get would be approximately $30 million.
. . . that the management expected that the Canadian National, on the average, will be able to provide out of its own earnings a reasonable amount for depreciation, to pay interest on its outside debts, to pay income tax, and have a dividend available for its preferred stock-maybe not 4 per cent in any one year but there will be something.
I was interested in that statement and I am very glad to see that the president of the railway is prepared to make a statement as optimistic as that because after all he is a realist, and I thought it might be worth while to have the statement on the record.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall section 3 carry?	^


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Minister to purchase shares.
William Alfred Robinson: For the convenience of those members who have before them the printed copy of the bill I might say that the sessional committee on railways and shipping adopted an amendment to subsection 1 of clause 6 as follows:
By adding after the word "value" in the seventh line, the following words:
"when added to the par value of such shares of stock purchased under subsection (2)"


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Clause 6 provides a means whereby the railway can supply some of its needs for further additions and betterments, etc., by means other than borrowing. The means taken is that the Minister of Finance is to be authorized to purchase additional stock of the railway each year in an amount equal to 3 per cent of the

gross revenue of the national system in any fiscal year. I think that is clear, Mr. Chairman, and that the minister by this purchase of capital stock will Drovide that much. For the purposes of the railway in the current year it would amount to something like $18 million.
Now I want to read a short extract from Mr. Gordon's evidence again, because we questioned him on this. First of all we asked how this 3 per cent was arrived at. It is difficult, I think, to give any definite principle, but we did ask him if he could indicate what percentage of his requirements might be satisfied in that way. I would like to read what he said and this evidence becomes relevant, Mr. Chairman, because we are in the midst of considering a bill which is to provide the balance of the request. Mr. Gordon was asked, with a substantial amount of additions and betterments provided by the provisions of section 6, how much would he still need to borrow. He said:
. . . the amount which the Minister of Finance contracted to buy there in the form of preferred stock, we are required to put into use for additions and betterments-
This, he adds, would be roughly 50 per cent of their needs for additions and betterments. Then he goes on:
In other words, we would still have to borrow the balance of our needs for additions and betterments. We would have our depreciation, and this of course would be over and above what we would have to borrow.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the situation. We have this provision whereby the Minister of Finance buys stock, and the balance-I think it is desirable for us all to remember this-will be provided by this house, as in past years. We shall still have the railway company asking us to provide an additional amount for additions and betterments.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-What accounts to show.


William Alfred Robinson: May I also advise the committee that section 10 has been amended by the addition of the word "are" after the word "railway" in line 11 of subclause 3 of the last clause.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-C.N.R. securities trust.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say a word on this section. There was some question about section 11 because of the complicated nature of the Canadian National Railways securities trust. Indeed, it was in connection with that that at one of the hearings the president of the company said there was only one man in the railway

who knew about it, and he was shortly to retire. He later corrected that statement and I believe that he did, in fact, do himself an injustice.
This trust holds various securities representing really the ancient history of the various companies, and for technical legal reasons it is felt necessary to keep these securities alive and to provide a convenient means of holding them. I like to think the railway will gradually b able to eliminate this situation as time goes on and these securities can be redeemed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Minister to include statement of assistance in public accounts.
William Alfred Robinson: May I also advise the committee that section 19 has been amended by deleting the words "value of" in the forty-second line thereof.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.


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


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 307, to amend the Canada Dairy Products Act.


Mr. Catherwood:: Has the minister any representations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably the question should be asked in the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister going to say something?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a question coming up.


A. Earl Catherwood: Is the minister going to make a statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not very much that can be said. This bill came from the Senate. It will be recalled that a year ago when we put through the Canada Dairy Products Act
Dairy Products Act
there was considerable discussion on it in the Senate. I was away at the time that discussion took place, but the suggestion was made that we were most anxious for it to go through, and we were. The representations that came to us are largely from the dairy council of Canada.
Later on in the season, before we got the regulations drafted which were based upon this legislation, it was intimated to us that some of the provinces-I believe one was the province of Ontario-were putting through legislation which made it much less necessary that we have this legislation, that is in so far as it is covered by section 6 of the act. We made representations to the Senate that we were prepared to remove this section from the act entirely. They wanted to amend it to make certain provisions which went only partially as far as we were proposing to go in taking section 6 out. We are taking section 6 out of the act partially because of the fact that it deals with things other than dairy products. In discussing it before a committee of the Senate I suggested that if such matters had to be dealt with, I thought the better way to deal with them was in special legislation, not in the dairy act because they raised a great many questions which were not being properly discussed when we are considering dairy products. The Senate agreed to that suggestion and amended their legislation in order to make it conform with what we suggested, namely that we take out the whole section instead of just taking out part of it. That is the proposal here, namely that we take out the whole section.
I may say that I think most of the matters about which hon. members and others outside the house are concerned in connection with dairy products are already provided for under section 5 of the act in any case. Section 6 simply deals with substitutes for dairy products, products that really are not dairy products at all, and also dairy products which are adulterated by putting something else into them. That sort of thing can be covered under section 5; we do not need section 6 to do that. So we are suggesting taking out section 6.


A. Earl Catherwood: I should like to ask the minister whether he has had any representations from the national dairy farmers or from the federation of agriculture with regard to this section of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that I have had representations. I have discussed it with the dairy council of Canada. I have discussed it with the president and other representatives of the federation. They all understand what is being done, and they

Dairy Products Act
do not see that it is going to do any particular aarm to the act itself if it is done in this way.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the committee probably welcomes the introduction of this bill. I know that last year this amendment was slipped through in the dying days of the session. I am certain that quite a percentage of the members of the house did not realize that this provision had been introduced into the act, or the implications of it. I know that when I saw it afterwards and when I learned of the discussions in the Senate-we are all hard pressed with business at the end of a session-I was surprised that it could have gone through, because it seemed to me to be a violation of the constitutional provisions with regard to trade. It seemed to be an interference with trade which did not appear to conform to the non-interference with interprovincial trade provided for in the British North America Act. Of course I know why it was done.
Under the circumstances I think it is proper to repeal this section. If it had been challenged in the courts probably the government would have had a fairly difficult time in getting a favourable verdict for this provision. Be that as it may, I think the repeal of something that was done hurriedly last year, without the house realizing all the implications of it, is something we should all welcome at this time. I am simply saying that we are supporting the bill as passed by the Senate and now as recommended to the house by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I do not entirely agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I presume this amendment was introduced in the other place by the gentleman who is so anxious to ruin the dairy industry and who fostered margarine. As I understand it this provision would prohibit margarine, or formerly prohibited it. I remember discussing the matter at the time the bill came up for consideration last year. I am sorry the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not familiar with the bills that went through at the last session.


Major James William Coldwell: I am familiar with them, but this one went through at the end of the session without our noticing it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will admit it went through at the end of the session; but his colleague immediately behind him usually catches anything that might not conform exactly to the rules or to-


Major James William Coldwell: Hoyle.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -Hoyle, as you might call it. What I am interested in particularly

is the question asked by the hon. member for Haldimand. Has the dairy council or the federation of agriculture asked for this amendment, or is it merely this member in the other place who is determined, to the best of his ability, to ruin the dairy industry and who has made every possible effort to do so? I am particularly interested in the matter, owing to the fact that some 239,607,300 pounds of copra were allowed into the country tax free-and I do not believe there was any health examination-in order to permit the manufacture of margarine, a substitute, as the minister said, for a real dairy product. I will admit that that matter does not come under his department; I refer to this unfair competition of these cheap oils from other countries. I am surprised at the leader of the C.C.F. being in favour of this unfair competition with the dairy farmers of Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. I said I thought this provision was unconstitutional, that it should not have been passed, and that if the government could not make it stick it would be better to repeal it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will answer that statement by saying this. We have just gone through two election campaigns, and 90 per cent of the promises that were made by a certain party were unconstitutional and could not be carried out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the reason the Liberals got licked?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Certainly; because those promises could not be carried out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Liberal promises.


Major James William Coldwell: It does not apply to us.


Mr. Gauihier (Porineuf):: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I will allow myself to be called to order by you, but not by another hon. member.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: I did not mean the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not going to oppose this amendment but I cannot see the reason for the sudden change. There is only one province, namely the province of Quebec, which so far in Canada has had the good judgment to try to protect the dairy farmers.


Mr. MacNaught:: What about Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Sinclair:: Did the hon. member say "good judgment"?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will go further and say that great suburb, namely Prince Edward Island, has shown the good judgment to try to protect the dairy farmers.


Mr. Benidickson:: They are road-blocking national trade.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member says they are road-blocking national trade. When we hear all the demands that are made for the protection of the pulp industry in Canada-


William Moore Benidickson: There is no protection for the pulp industry in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have read articles with regard to some of the demands of the pulp industry which, I understand, includes a little place called Kenora.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would confine himself to the principle of Bill No. 307, which has to do with the dairy industry.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be glad to,
Mr. Chairman. May I just say that I am certainly not going to vote against this amendment, inasmuch as it has been introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is a strange thing that just at this stage the Department of Agriculture should discover their mistake, or what they say was their mistake, when this amendment was not asked for by the dairy council or by the federation of agriculture or by any other representative group of farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably the hon. member was not in the chamber when I spoke previously. I am not sure whether he was or not. His seat is behind me, and I did not notice whether he was in the chamber or not. But I have already stated that the dairy council suggested that this amendment be made. They made suggestions before the house met and also after the amendment was introduced into the other place. With regard to the suggestion made by the leader of the C.C.F. party, I would refer him to the discussion which took place in the other chamber. I do not want to read it, but it is on the record, indicating that they had dropped the constitutional arguments entirely. When I was invited to go over to the committee this year I thought I was going over to discuss the question from the constitutional point of view, depending on control or interference with trade as among the provinces; but when I got there I found they had decided themselves that that argument was either not sound or was not an argument upon which they wished to proceed. They proceeded simply on the merits of the argument as I
Dairy Products Act
have stated it to the committee, namely that in section 6 we are talking about substitutes for butter.
The section as it stands reads:
6. (1) The governor in council may by regulation prohibit ... of any class of products that is designated by the regulations as being (i) milk, cream, butter, cheese, condensed milk, evaporated milk, milk powder, dry milk, ice cream, malted milk or sherbet . . .
In the discussions that took place, people stopped reading at that point and said that the act prevented trade in all these products. That is not what the act says. It goes on to say:
. . . that contains fat or oil other than that of milk,
That is, it means that you have adulterated the milk or put something else into it that is not milk at all. It is pointed out that is dealt with in section 5; therefore we do not need section 6 in order to deal with that kind of thing. It is already dealt with. Provision is made by regulation to prevent trade in anything which has been adulterated.
The other part deals with a substitute for milk, cream, butter, cheese, condensed milk, evaporated milk, milk power, dry milk, ice cream, malted milk or sherbet. Well, a substitute for that is in all probability not a dairy product. Therefore we have suggested that if anything needs to be done in connection with that kind of product, then we should have separate legislation and not deal with it under the Canada Dairy Products Act, because we get into all this complicated discussion about trading in dairy products. You cannot trade in dairy products now which are not properly graded, as between provinces. That is all provided for in section 5 and in other parts of the act. Therefore we are simply removing section 6 because we do not think it is necessary in this act. If it should be provided for at all, it should be provided for in separate legislation.


Mr. Charlion:: Did I understand the minister to say that the national dairy council and the dairy farmers of Canada had agreed to this?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said the dairy council of Canada have asked that this be done.


John Alpheus Charlton: And the dairy farmers of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been discussed with the dairy farmers of Canada; they know what was being considered in regard to the matter, but they did not ask for it definitely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance Act UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT

Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 332, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my remarks at this stage of the bill will be very brief. We have already had a discussion on the principle of this amending legislation in the earlier stages, and we shall be able to deal with the details when we get into committee. Also we have made it clear that we support this legislation so far as it goes. However, I should like to make it clear once again that from a study of the principles underlying the funding of insurance of this kind and from a study of the amounts that are on hand in the unemployment insurance fund we feel that there is too great a disparity between the premium payments required of those insured and the benefits paid. In our view either one thing or the other should be done. Either the amount of benefits paid under the act should be increased or the premium payments required of those insured should be decreased. Our preference is for the former, that the amount of the benefits should be increased, having regard to the suggestions made to the government by the major labour congresses in this country.
As we have indicated on previous occasions, another shortcoming in the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I regret that there seems to be nothing in the amending legislation now before us to take care of it, has to do with the position of the unemployment insurance benefit recipients who, while on those benefits, become ill. I realize that the minister made a statement the other day on this point. I hope he has given thought to the reply I made to his statement, and that further consideration will yet be given that phase of the matter. This is entirely apart from the question of any sickness benefits that might be obtained under a health insurance program. Entirely apart from that, we believe that when a person is drawing unemployment insurance benefits, having qualified in every way for these benefits, he should not be cut off from them because he takes ill; particularly when, as in many instances is the situation, there is still no work for him.
There are two or three other matters in which we are interested but which we can deal with when we get into committee. I referred to some of these matters in the earlier stages. At the moment I shall leave


it at that, expressing our very strong views with respect to those two matters which we feel to be very important.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to say a word at this time also. When the minister's estimates were before the house I made quite a lengthy statement in regard to section 38, regulation 5 (a), having to do with married women. Perhaps the minister and his advisers have read the Hansard report of that speech. I feel very strongly on that point, because there is rank discrimination in so far as married women are concerned when they lose their employment. I am just wondering whether the minister has any intention of making some amendments to regulation 5 (a) when the bill is in committee, because as it reads at the present time it practically deals out a married woman, despite the fact that she is supposed to be insured during the period of her employment.
I mention that now so the minister can give us some indication as to whether or not there is any intention of proposing an amendment to the regulation. It would not require much of an amendment to accomplish the purpose. Certainly it is inflexible at the present time.
I should like to say a word or two in support of the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that while a person is sick these payments should not be discontinued. I stressed this matter a couple of years ago in the house, but apparently there has not been much change in that regard. The position is that in many industries across Canada employees pay into a sick benefit fund. This is a form of insurance against being without funds when they are ill. As it is a form of insurance, they are legitimately entitled to receive that sick benefit for the period during which they are ill. Since that time the Unemployment Insurance Act has been passed.
There will be many men, particularly those employed in the heavy industries such as the steel plants, the coal mines and the automobile factories, places where the work is very heavy, who will find themselves ill and will not be able to carry on their normal work. These men may not be bedridden, but they receive the benefits of their insurance plan for which they have already paid, and from which they are entitled legitimately to collect.
At the same time they are not employed in their regular occupations and they have another form of insurance for which they are paying, covering the period of their unemployment. The person who is in the dual position of being insured on two counts,

upon making application for his sick benefit is ruled immediately as ineligible for unemployment insurance. If he does not make application for his sick benefit and is registered as being unemployed, he places himself in the position of serving notice on his employer severing his employment.
In industry there are pension plans based upon the amount of time a man has worked. While a worker may be ill for only three weeks or a month, he must forgo his sick benefits if he wishes to receive unemployment insurance. If he takes the unemployment insurance, he thus severs his employment with his employer and may not get back on the payroll again.
This is a question which I suggest the unemployment insurance authorities should discuss with industrialists. I refer to the situation where there is a sick benefit plan in operation. These sick benefit plans came into being many years before the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed, and have carried on since that time.
I suggest that the man who is incapacitated for a short period of time, and may not be able to carry on his regular form of heavy employment, has a legitimate claim on both counts to the insurance for which he has paid. There should be an understanding on the part of the commission that a man who has registered as unemployed for a month or so should not be faced with an employer who takes the adamant attitude that the employee must be struck off the payroll, and will not be permitted to return to work. If the insurance is to be paid both ways, then there should be some co-ordination in administration. There should be some understanding.
I am not blaming the commission, because it has been my experience that in so far as it is within their power they are willing to co-operate. The adamant attitude is the one taken by the employer, and I am now referring particularly to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation in Nova Scotia. This matter has been discussed time and again in union circles, and I am just wondering if the minister and some of his officials might take a look into it and have a talk with the employer in this particular instance, because in my opinion he is the one who is taking the unreasonable attitude. It is up to someone to prove to the employer that this attitude is not reasonable.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) brought up an important point. I receive a good deal of correspondence from people who say, "We have paid unemployment insurance for five years, or since the inception of the plan. We are
Unemployment Insurance Act laid off when sick, and stay away for a few months, during which time we have no income. When we apply for unemployment insurance we are told we cannot get it because we did not sever our employment in the way set out in the act. We are told that ill health or sickness is not a justification for drawing unemployment insurance." Nevertheless these persons are not working, and have no income. Some of them suggest they should have a return of the premiums they have paid in, and that has been the general point of view discussed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. On the other hand the problem of dual insurance is one that should be discussed with employers with a view to arriving at some measure of co-ordination and understanding, so the insurance payments will be made for the purposes for which the two kinds of insurance were established.
I do not expect the minister to reply now, but I do expect him to take the matter under advisement and, at some time in the future, to give an explanation of what might be done, after he has consulted with employers and the others concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment on what has been said this afternoon. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has recalled to my mind his suggestion for benefits during illness. As I indicated to him the other night, in common with all other features connected with this act that matter will be kept under study by the commission and the advisory bodies associated with it. The same observations would apply to his comments respecting on the one hand an improvement in the situation by means of better benefits than are set out in this measure or, on the other, improving the situation by cutting down on the amount of payments into the fund.
I think the hon. member will agree that up to this date the study that has been given this change has been at least intense and, to my mind at least, conscientious. The fact that we will be putting this measure into effect does not suggest in any way that the study of the machinery will come to an end or even to pause. That study will be continued.
The program the unemployment insurance commission has under way is a complicated one. As the house knows, the commission was given wide powers, and perhaps properly so, so that it might not be too easily swayed by outside influences. Nevertheless the members of the commission have been well

Unemployment Insurance Act aware of the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and those points will receive their continued consideration.
Referring now to the situation as it affects married women, the other night I had a comment to make to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), but when I was prepared to speak he was not in his seat. I prefer to make my representations to him personally, and perhaps he would be prepared to hear them when we reach the committee stage. I may also tell the hon. member that I will issue an invitation to the commission to make careful study of the other matter he mentioned which affects more particularly the city of Sydney.
Perhaps the other points raised might be more easily discussed when we reach the committee stage. I might point out at this juncture that the other day, in the company of the chairman of the standing committee on industrial relations, I reviewed the status of the members of that committee. We were astounded to find that some were on three, four or five committees. Consequently I am not suggesting at this stage that the bill be referred to that committee. The fact is that the five important amendments are not very complex. That does not hold, however, with respect to several of the minor amendments, and I should like to tell hon. members that if when we go into committee any technical features arise affecting these minor amendments concerning which hon. members would rather not take up the time of the committee of the whole, I will be very happy to make my officials available in my office at a time when we can go into them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Exempted persons.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I presume the minister has made what statement he proposes to make on moving second reading of the bill. In speaking on clause 1 it is not my intention to reiterate what I said the other night at the resolution stage of the bill, except that I wish to refer to one or two items. The hon. member for Cape Breton South spoke of the regulation affecting married women respecting which I spoke last year and again this year, and with which of course I am very much concerned. I should like to press for some action with regard to this regulation. Speaking in the house the other night at the resolution stage I made some remarks with reference to the reduction of the period from 90 days. At that time I said I could see that there might


be difficulties in establishing intention, but that no fault could be found with reducing the period in the first instance to 60 days.
However, I must admit that since that time, having considered the matter further at some length, I have come to the conclusion that I was very lenient in that regard. I can see no reason why this section should not be taken right out of the regulations. I know the arguments that are put forward by the department. I know the difficulties with which the local offices are faced; but in my opinion they are no more difficult than those with which they are faced with respect to numerous employees in many lines of activity. To say that misrepresentation or malingering is confined only to one section of the labour force is in my opinion a reflection on the integrity of that particular group of citizens. I can see no reason at all why this regulation was put in the act in the first place. It has only been in effect for about two years, and has been operative for only a little more than a year. I can see no reason why this particular group was singled out for discrimination. It is not only a reflection on the integrity of working women but in my opinion it is also an intrusion on their civil rights.
Consideration of the matter from this angle has caused me to speak today in stronger terms than those in which I spoke the other evening at the resolution stage of the bill. While I was willing at that time to see the regulations relaxed somewhat, I now say I believe firmly that this particular provision should be stricken from the regulations as they now stand. I ask the minister to give this matter very careful consideration. I am sure there are other ways of handling this problem, and that it is no more serious among this class of workers than among all the other classes with which the commission deals. This section and the difficulty which is encountered with respect thereto lead me also to urge the contention I made the other night that there should be a woman member of the commission. As I said at that time, it is of course impossible to have such representation under the present set-up of the commission unless its membership is enlarged.
In the tenth annual report of the unemployment insurance commission there is a table on page 44 which deals with placements in regular and casual employment. I was interested to note that so far as regular placements are concerned those of women represent 36.3 per cent or well over one-third of those of men. As to casual placements the proportion is much higher. Casual placements of women were 63 per cent of those of men. Totalling the two and

figuring out the average, female placements represented 40 per cent of male placements. I feel that in itself supports the contention that if the working forces of the Dominion of Canada contain within their numbers such a large percentage of women, then women should be represented on the commission by someone who understands those problems which are not so easily argued by fact and logic.
On page 28 of the same report there is a table of placements of handicapped people during 1950. Here again the number of female placements is well over one-third of male placements. That appears to be the case pretty well throughout the picture. On page 25 of the report special mention is made of the increased number of women in the labour market in Canada. I should like to read into the record a paragraph which deals with this problem. It is headed, "Increase of women in labour market", and reads as follows:
During 1950 there was a steady increase in the number of female applicants registered at local offices of the commission for whom it was not possible to find suitable employment. It is believed that the increase was due, in part at least, to the rising cost of living in Canada and the necessity for married women to seek employment in order to augment the family income. However, notwithstanding a steady demand from employers for stenographers and typists, many women registered in these occupations could not be referred to employers because they were married and no longer in the lower age brackets.
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this is a problem which has many sides, but whatever the reason may be for the increased entry into employment of women of all ages and all amounts of experience, we must nevertheless recognize now that it is a condition of modern living. Inasmuch as it is a condition of modern living we can no longer close our eyes to it. We must accept it. For this reason I am more than ever convinced that the efficiency of the commission would be enhanced by its enlargement to include a woman member thereof. This belief is confirmed by a booklet, "Unemployment Insurance in Canada, 1940-1950," issued by the industrial relations section of the university of Montreal. After describing in a general way the workings of unemployment insurance in Canada in the ten-year period it winds up with this paragraph:
If the unemployment insurance commission in its administrative task continues to give priority to the human problems of the individual, if day after day it betters its relations with the insured, if it encourages its personnel to pursue intellectual and moral culture, the commission will thus give to the law a more human and more socially valuable function.
I think that is perfectly true, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is a plea which might well be heeded by this house. In order to
Unemployment Insurance Act give the house something concrete upon which to take a stand I would like to move an amendment to this bill. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Meeker), that the following section be added to the bill:
20. That section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended:
(a)	by substituting the word "four" for the word "three" in the third line thereof and
(b)	by deleting all the words after the word "council" in the fourth line thereof and substituting the following: "one of whom shall be a chief commissioner and one of whom shall be a woman."


William Alfred Robinson: Shall section 1 carry?


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, is this amendment not to be considered now? I have something to say on clause 1 as soon as this is out of the way.


William Alfred Robinson: The amendment just proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West is an amendment following section 20 of the bill and I think it should be moved at that point.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as this would insert an extra section into the bill it was my opinion that it should be discussed on section 1 when the bill in general was being discussed. It will necessitate renumbering present section 20 and I do not see how it can be brought in under section 20 when there is an existing section 20. I would ask the Chair's consideration of that point.


Milton Fowler Gregg: As I think my hon. friend for Hamilton West knows, the principle of making sure that the needs of women workers in Canada are taken care of is one that is paramount within the commission. The commission at the present time consists of three members, one appointed after consultation with the national organized labour bodies, one after consultation with organized employers; and the chairman is appointed by the government.
As the hon. member has indicated, unless it were possible to come to the point where organized labour would nominate a woman or organized employers would recommend a woman it would be quite difficult to do it under the present set up. I am quite sure that in any re-organization or expansion of the commission that factor would be taken into consideration. I would like to point out that in the whole array of advisory bodies starting from those that advise the local offices, those that advise the regional offices, and those that advise the head office, women are represented in an advisory capacity; but I know that does not fulfil the need she has in mind.
With respect to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to give us the benefit
3398	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act of your views on two counts. First, it does not amend the bill before the house; it amends the original act. Second, public expenditure would be required to carry it out. I am therefore wondering if it would be in order on those counts.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I will take under consideration the remarks made by the minister and I will point out to the hon. member for Hamilton West who has proposed the amendment that her amendment adds section 20 to the bill. I therefore feel that I could not put that amendment now nor should I rule on it until following consideration of section 19. I will put it at that time, of course.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to bring it up again at that time because I believe consideration should be given to it. It is all very well to have good intentions but if they never get any further than lip service we are not going to achieve the results we hope for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw attention to what I believe is an error in drafting or perhaps I should say a fault in the drafting of section 1. My hon. friend and I do not profess to be lawyers, but he has one on his right and perhaps there are some others near by. Section 1 deletes the present subclause (b) of section 16, subsection 1 and substitutes a new subsection (b) which provides for a slight alteration in the definition. I am not concerned about the substance; I am concerned merely about the wording. If the minister has before him the act in its present form, on page 9 of the office consolidation he will see, at the top of that page, that the set-up of section 16, subsection 1 is as follows:
Where an employed person establishes to the satisfaction of the commission that he is either:
(a)	a person who is employed . . .
... so and so, and then:
(b)	a person who . . .
... so and so.
According to the authorities I have read on the drafting of legislation, that is not good; and I have a very excellent booklet on the subject by Mr. E. A. Driedger, counsel to the Department of Justice. According to him that is not good drafting.
With the proposed amendment subsection one of section 16 would read as follows:
Where an employed person establishes to the satisfaction of the commission that he is either
(a)	a person who . . .
. . . such and such; and then:
(b)	habitually employed . . .
I submit that somebody got in a hurry and left out a few words, and that subparagraphs


(a)	and (b) should be drafted in parallel form. The matter can be corrected very easily by putting in the words "a person who is". In other words, if you made paragraph
(b)	which is now before us read-
(b) a person who is habitually employed in insurable employment for a total of not more than four hours a day;
-you would correct the fault to which I am drawing attention and you would make the new subclause (b) parallel in form with subclause (a). I wonder if the minister would care to comment.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I understand from my officials that the author of your booklet vetted this paragraph but I see the point my hon. friend makes; that one of them is "a person who is employed in" and the other, while it makes sense, does not follow the same pattern and states that "he is habitually employed" . . .


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Driedger says that is elliptical and that an ellipsis is not good.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think it will affect the proper working of the section. It may add a little variety there and I do not think it is worth making an amendment.


George Harris Hees: When speaking at the resolution stage of this bill, I brought to the minister's attention the particular case of a man in my riding who had contributed to the unemployment insurance scheme ever since its inception eleven years ago. He had built up a credit of more than $900, and last November became unemployed. He drew benefits for thirteen days, and then had to enter hospital for an eye operation. As soon as he entered hospital his unemployment insurance benefits were cut off. After the man had been released from the hospital, being totally blind, I was notified. I brought the matter to the attention of the house through a letter written to me regarding my inquiry about that man, explaining why these unemployment insurance benefits had been cut off.
This letter had been written by Mr. B. G. Sullivan, Ontario regional supervisor, saying how much the commission regretted the action but at that time the man did not come under the regulations and could no longer, therefore, be paid unemployment insurance benefits. I also drew to the minister's attention the fact that I insisted on the Canadian National Institute for the Blind being notified. On my insistence they were notified and guards were provided so the man could resume his employment. I pointed out to the minister that, unfortunately, none of this would have taken place if I had not brought the matter to the attention of the unemployment insurance commission and requested, very strongly I may add, that they notify the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

In view of that incident, I should like to know what instructions the minister has sent out to the employees of the unemployment insurance commission concerning the steps they should take when a man or woman who has built up an unemployment insurance credit is prevented from working because of a permanent disability. What does the minister suggest they should do in order to see that a disabled man or woman is enabled to continue work, by means of guards or aids, as in the case of the man I mentioned?
The second point I should like the minister to answer is this. As I pointed out in speaking earlier, the unemployment insurance credits which a man or woman builds up are built up through contributions made by that man or woman and his or her employer.
Mr. (Sregg: And the government.


George Harris Hees: But mostly by contributions made by the man or woman and the employer. I believe those credits belong to that man or woman by right. They exist because the man or woman built them up so they would be available if for any reason the man or woman became unemployed. When a permanent disability takes place the unemployment insurance commission completely cuts that man or woman off from unemployment insurance benefits, as in the case of the man I mentioned. The man in the case I cited had a credit of over $900, and the commission was quite willing to cut him off from that credit for all time by simply stating, in so many words, "That money no longer belongs to you; you have no right to it because you are permanently disabled."
I believe that is completely wrong. There is no time when a man or woman needs unemployment insurance credits nearly as badly as when he or she becomes totally disabled and thereby prevented from earning a living. Not only do they have to go on providing for themselves and their families, but in most cases they have doctor and hospital bills to pay as well. I believe there are many more reasons why those unemployment insurance credits should be paid to those people than to people who are just temporarily unemployed.
I feel sure that in answering the minister will tell me the Unemployment Insurance Act has been set up on an actuarially sound basis which does not take into consideration payments to people in the totally disabled category. However, I believe that if the commission's doctors have examined a man or woman and certified that he or she is permanently disabled and cannot earn a living, then the unemployment insurance commission should pay those people the credits standing in their name.
Unemployment Insurance Act
If it takes some readjustment of the actuarial set-up of the act, I feel there could be no more worth-while reason for so doing.
I do not believe it would require a very great readjustment, because there are not many people who become disabled. I believe it is something which should receive immediate consideration by the government.
I would appreciate hearing from the minister on the two points I have mentioned: first, what instructions, following the rather shocking example which I brought forward, has he sent to the unemployment insurance employees across the country informing them that when a person becomes disabled the commission should not simply write him a letter saying how it breaks their heart not to be able to pay him any more insurance benefits. You could practically hear the tears falling on Mr. Sullivan's desk as he wrote the letter which I read to the house. You could just hear his heart breaking:


Mr. Lennard:: I don't think he ever wept in his life.


George Harris Hees: I don't think he did, either. I should like to know what instructions the minister has issued to remedy that rather regrettable situation. I should also like to know what the minister feels about the necessity of continuing to pay whatever unemployment insurance credits a man or woman still has standing in their name at the time they become disabled.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member asks what instructions I have sent to the offices of the unemployment insurance commission across Canada, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this matter. I believe he knows that the minister has no right whatever to send instructions to the offices of the commission. I believe he has every right and every duty to call to the attention of the members of the commission any representations that may be made in this house, and that I most certainly do and have done.
With regard to the case mentioned the other night, I was glad to find that in that case the benefits had been reinstated in February. The remainder of the hon. member's remarks were related to a discussion which I tried to cover the other night, suggesting that this act be extended to cover sickness and disability. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was very quick to check me up and suggest that I had travelled over much more ground than he had. But I am sure the committee will realize that if the unemployment insurance commission once climbs over the fence into that field, it will be assuming obligations upon which it would be difficult to set limits by any mere patchwork amendments to this
3400	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act act. I am not going to attempt to cover that ground again now, but I would point out that matters affecting the stability of the fund are set out very clearly as a function for the unemployment insurance advisory committee under sections 82, 83 and 84 of the act.
All the representations that were made in today's discussions, the discussion on the estimates and on these amendments have been brought or will be brought to the attention of the commission and the advisory body for their continued study.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister finished? I asked for a straight answer on the second part. I asked him for his opinion on that matter. I wi'l put it again. I will ask him what his opinion is on the specific case I brought, to his attention. Does he think it is a fair thing to cut off from benefits a man who, for eleven years, contributed to his unemployment insurance, and built up a credit of more than $900 out of his own pocket and the pocket of his employer? The credit exists because that man and his employer have made it possible. Through no fault of his he suddenly becomes permanently blind. Does the minister feel that it is the fair thing for the unemployment insurance commission to do with $900 in its pocket which that man and his employer have built up for his use if he should become unemployed, simply to say to him "We are terribly sorry, but we just cannot do a thing for you; we have $900 which you have built up, but the regulations do not allow us to pay it to you"; and to then allow that man, who is permanently blind, just to live out the rest of his life as best he can? As far as I know the unemployment insurance commission, judging by the letter written by Mr. Sullivan to me, which I read to this house, did not have the slightest feeling of worry or distress about what would happen to Mr. Monk at that point. He was blind; he did not come under the regulations any further; and as far as I could see the members of the unemployment commission were perfectly willing just to abandon that man for all time. That is a specific case and an important one. I should like to know from the minister whether he thinks that is the kind of thing that should be allowed to go on. May I have an answer to that question?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think this is the occasion for the minister to express his opinion.
I have assured my hon. friend that his representations have received and will continue to receive careful consideration. The man in question-and I do not give this as any rebuttal to the hon. member's statement-would not have paid in that amount out of his own


pocket, but that is neither here nor there. It would be about $400 that he himself would pay for the period in question.
I have had a good deal of reason to believe -and I would certainly hope that such is the case-that the commission has engendered the tendency in their offices right across the country where they cannot do anything under the act or under the regulations, to make it as easy as possible for those who have been insured to gain assistance or advice in some other way, just as my hon. friend did in this par'icular case through the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I do not want to express any opinion except to say that in this case or in any others we will undertake to make sure that the benefits under the act are administered to the advantage of the insured individual to the utmost possible exteht.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am still not
getting an answer from the minister. I want to know whether he is going to recommend to the unemployment insurance commission-


An hon. Member:: He cannot.


George Harris Hees: If the minister cannot, what in the world is the use of carrying on this discussion in this chamber?


Mr, Fournier (Hull):: I would suggest that the hon. member discuss this bill. He tried to discuss this subject the other day. He was out of order then and he is still out of order today. I would ask the chairman to direct him to discuss the subject matter of this bill.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, on item 1 I am discussing the general question of unemployment insurance.


Alphonse Fournier: We are not dealing-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


Alphonse Fournier: We are not dealing with insurance for blind persons. We are dealing with unemployment insurance.


George Harris Hees: That is exactly what I am talking about.


Alphonse Fournier: No.


George Harris Hees: Yes, it is.
The Depuiy Chairman: The minister has raised a point of order. As I understand it, the hon. member for Broadview is discussing a particular instance whereas the general rule is that on the first section of the bill we would be dealing with the principle of the bill under discussion. I therefore think that the hon. member should confine himself to a discussion of the general principle of the bill at this point.


Mr. Meeker:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind the minister of a condition that

exists in my riding and perhaps to suggest a solution that might be looked into. At the present time there are in my riding approxi-ma ely 742 unemployed persons, and orders for jobs exist for only some 80 people. In addition, on part time and perhaps working two or three days a week are well over 1,200 people. In former years-or at least as far back as I can remember-Waterloo South, with its great textile industries, its woodworking firms and its large metal industries, was always one of Ontario's most prosperous communities. The fact that we have almost
2,000	people not working steadily is an indication that somewhere there i.s something wrong.
This condition has existed for almost a year. I defy any member of the government or any person in this committee to tell me or the people out of work in my community that the condition is only seasonal. One of the factors that contributes largely to unemployment in the furniture factories in my riding is the effect of the deferred depreciation regulations. Last year the Minister of Finance disallowed for four years depreciation on new plant and equipment. This disallowance definitely slowed the sales of factory, office and store fixtures and furniture. I have heard of many large retail firms which are refusing to remodel their stores with new articles of equipment, thereby causing unemployment in our furniture factories.
In larger towns and cities where people who are out of work are easily absorbed by other industries, this is not a serious condition. But in the smaller cities and villages where there is a large amount of unemployment, these people cannot be absorbed by other industries. I would urge the Minister of Labour to use his influence with the Minister of Finance with a view to getting him to correct this situation as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Rates of benefit.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would point out that this is the clause which makes for the slight improvement in the rate of benefit in certain of the categories. I have already indicated our view. With the fund being in the state it is, and the principles underlying the funding of such a plan being what they are, we feel that there is too great a disparity between the amount paid in and the benefits received. We suggested that one or other of two things should be done. I indicated that in our view the preferable change would be to increase the benefits by more than the minister has indicated in the bill.
Unemployment Insurance Act
In addition to emphasizing that view I should like to point out that when the act was amended in 1950 it was worded in such a way with respect to section 31 of the act, which we are now considering under clause 4 of this bill, as to create quite a bit of confusion in the minds of many workers as to the benefits to which they were entitled on becoming unemployed. Some of us pointed out when this was being put through in 1950 that there was more than confusion involved; that there was actually a certain loss of an alleged increase. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour will probably recall that he and I had quite a debate over the effect of the wording in section 31 (2) (b) as it stands at the present time in the main act. That clause reads:
In computing the average daily contribution (a) one cent shall be deducted from each daily contribution paid by the insured person after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty.
I pointed out to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who was piloting the bill on that occasion that the result of that clause being in there where we are told how a worker computes his benefit, is that when the worker looks at the table to ascertain his benefit he must move one line above the amount he is paying in to ascertain the amount of benefit he will draw out. I need not rehash the argument we had on that occasion. My position has certainly been vindicated, at least in my own experience, by the large number of letters I have had on this very point. Many a time I have had to explain to an unemployed worker why he was receiving not the benefit set directly opposite the amount he had been paying in, but rather the amount directly opposite and up one line. The reason for that is the section which I have just read from the main act.
I want to repeat my opposition to the substance of what was done on that occasion and to the confusion that it created. I am glad to note that, at least the confusion is being resolved in the amending section now before us. But all that is resolved is the confusion; it does not make any change in substance. The terms of clause 4, which are now before us, when we get over to the table that is included in that clause, are different from the table at present in the act. That difference of course can be seen by looking at the table in its former state as it appears on the right hand page of the bill that is now before us. For example, the table on the opposite side formerly had opposite 3 cents the sum of $1 per day for a person without dependents. That was not really the case, for the qualifying clause which I read meant that a person had to move up one line. Thus his daily

Unemployment Insurance Act benefit was only 70 cents. In the new version of this table it is made clear that the person whose contribution is 3 cents draws only 70 cents a day. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the confusion has been resolved and that from here on workers, when they look at that table, will not wonder why they draw a benefit less than what would seem to be that to which they are entitled. I am sorry that is as far as this correction goes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will the minister explain why the two lower classes were excluded from increases in benefits?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This amendment, like the others, was recommended and approved by the unemployment insurance advisory committee. I will not go into a comparison of the two tables because, although it has been two years, that confusion has been cleared up by the rearrangement of the table to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago.
Had the benefits been increased in these two lower classes which have been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Hamilton West-that is, opposite 3 cents, $4.80 weekly; opposite 4 cents, $7.50 weekly-we would have been faced with what the experts call over-insurance. The present dependency benefit rate, for instance, in the earnings class of $9 to $14.99 is 83-3 per cent of the wages. It was the opinion of the actuaries, supported by the advisory committee, that it would be unwise to increase the present ratio. This will affect a very few people. It is estimated that of the claims established in 1951 less than 24 per cent were in this class, and in the last fiscal year the number of contributors in this class was only 1 [DOT] 54 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Waiting days.
Mr. Goode:: I should like to ask a question for information. I am not too sure whether I am on the right section or whether there is a section that would cover this question. If I am not in order of course you will tell me, Mr. Chairman. What is the position regarding the forestry workers and lumber workers in the province of British Columbia? As the minister knows, these men are on strike at the present time in rather large numbers. I do not know what the situation is. Under the act are these men going to be entitled to benefits somewhere down the line?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The amendment two years ago covered woods workers both in the east and in the west, but there is a general clause in the act which says that claimants on strike do not receive benefits.


Tom Goode: Then it does not matter how long the men are on strike or how short a time they are on strike, they are not entitled to any benefits whatsoever?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If it is adjudged a strike, under section 39 of the act they do not get anything during the work stoppage.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Recovery of benefit erroneously obtained.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Am I correct in assuming that no claimant will be penalized in respect of what is an honest error? In other words, as I read this new section, if a claimant had received benefits erroneously, through no fault of his own, without misrepresentation, he would not be penalized, nor would he be forced to repay those benefits?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Absence or incapacity.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 12 amends section 83 of the act, which is one of the sections under the general heading "unemployment insurance advisory committee". In fact this is the section which spells out the constitution of that committee and certain of its powers and functions. While we are on this clause I should like to take a moment to express to the minister my very strong views with regard to any change that may be made in the functioning of the advisory committees at the three levels. The minister knows that what I have in mind is covered by the difference between circular letter No. 18 and a proposed circular letter No. 19. As I understand it, under the present arrangement the avenue of travel between these committees is vertical. The local committees make their reports and recommendations to the regional committees and the regional committees in turn to the national advisory committee. In return the replies to those reports and recommendations, and any suggestions, travel the other way. That is provided for in circular letter No. 18, which spells out the way in which the committees are to function. As the minister knows-and this is set out in the section with which we are now dealing -these are people who are outside the direct employment of the unemployment insurance commission, and who represent labour and management. They are there to give advice.
It appears that there is some thought of changing the way those committees function

and suggesting that the local committees should have their contact and their way of reporting only through the local civil service side of the unemployment insurance commission; and that similarly the regional advisory committees should maintain their liaison with the regional officials through the civil service side of the unemployment insurance commission.
It has been represented to me by some of those who are interested in the matter that the present set-up has some very desirable features that should not be lost. Those who take this view fear that if there is a change to the other pattern, many good ideas born or hatched at the local level will never get to the point where they may really be considered.
Without in any way reflecting upon the efficiency with which the officials of the commission carry out their duties, there is a tendency on the part of officials to be concerned only in keeping things going as they are. So long as things are running along all right, so long as "Everything's up to date in my department"-and in this I am borrowing from a song we heard not long ago at the press gallery dinner-there is nothing to worry about.
I share the views of those who expressed the thought to me that the ideas generated in the local committees would not get very far past the local officials if that change were made. When I sought to have tabled a copy of circular letter No. 19 the minister informed me that it was only a proposed circular letter, and that it had not yet been put in final form. He pointed out that therefore it could not be tabled. Naturally I have no objection to there being a circular letter No. 19, or to there being a review of the pattern set out in circular letter No. 18; but I would hope that the proposed circular letter No. 19 might be reviewed before it is put in final form.
If any changes are felt desirable, let it not be at the expense of the loss of values to be obtained from getting ideas from the local level right up to the top level and back again, and securing the views and the opinions of advisory committees at all levels. It is not necessary to spend more time on the subject now, but I do urge the minister to give consideration to the point of view I am putting forward today, and which I understand has been expressed by some of the local and regional advisory committees.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This section has to do with the members of the committee who advise as to the stability of the funds. However, I did not mind hearing my hon. friend's remarks on the other matter, because it was mentioned by him before. I can assure him, with
Unemployment Insurance Act regard to draft circular No. 19, that before it is fully considered and put into effect there will be a desire to see that all the benefits of the old plan are maintained, in conjunction with some other good suggestions. It is the intention that regional committees will be fully informed of the recommendations of local committees and as to the action taken thereon, and that there will be no effort to prevent the discussion and consideration of any items which they feel have not been properly dealt with or which in their opinion have some regional significance.
If the regional employment committee in Winnipeg or in Moncton, let us say, or in any of the other regional offices, has a good idea or a constructive suggestion, I think it is important that it should be brought to the attention of the regional office immediately. At the same time I agree that it should be carried forward, and that the national committee should know about it.
I can assure the committee that every effort will be made to improve that technique in every possible way; because it is in this way in my opinion that the pulse of public opinion and the views of the workers as to the kind of service they are getting is brought to bear upon the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Rates of supplementary benefit.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: It would appear from the table in this section that the increase in benefits has not been extended to the supplementary benefits. If that is so, would the minister explain the basis upon which that action, or lack of it, is founded?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This amendment was made necessary by the amendment to section 31. Previously the calculation of the average daily contribution, which is the basis of regular benefit, included the deduction of one cent collected for the purpose of the supplementary benefit. Section 31 has now been amended, and this deduction is not made.
It is necessary to change the first column in subsection 3 of section 87C to conform with the change in the table in section 31. I believe that is a full explanation. The rates of supplementary benefit have not been increased but remain the same. The reason for this is that contributions to provide for supplementary benefits are in the main paid by persons entitled to regular benefits, and it was felt that any surplus of these contributions should go to the benefit of the many rather than to increase the benefits of the few.
3404

Unemployment Insurance Act
For example, in the last fiscal year over
500,000	persons received regular benefits and only 85,000 claimants received supplementary benefits. Having used the service to increase the regular benefits it was not found possible also to increase the supplementary. Supplementary payments made in the fiscal year 1949-50, from February 28 to April 15, amounted to $4,554,165; in 1950-51, from January 1 to March 31, they were $3,925,984; in 1951-52, from January 1 to April 30, they were $4,644,615.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think the minister's argument holds water, because if we are going to say that those who pay into the fund should be those who receive the benefits, then there is a very great class which has paid for years and has no hope of ever receiving anything from the fund. Those who are permanently employed, or who believe they are permanently employed, and even those in municipal service who have every expectation of being permanently employed in their present positions, would be in this class. Some of the arguments which have been presented to the commission with regard to these workers from whom contributions are taken, but who have no prospect of ever benefiting, would refute the minister's argument in this connection.
The mere fact that those who receive the supplementary benefits are a minority is no argument. If the scale of benefits is to be graded, then in my view the supplementary benefits should follow suit.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Of course, as in every other
type of insurance, if the unpleasant happening against which one is insured does not take place, then no collection is made. But it will be borne in mind that the supplementary beneficiary, before he or she can become so, must first become a regular one, and while in that regular capacity does receive the benefit of the upgrading.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It must also be borne in mind that they are paying 2 cents a day in addition between the two contributors and the government's contribution, which after all is also paid by the worker and the employer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It must also be borne in mind that it will be even more painful for that person now to have to take a still greater drop from the amount of his regular benefit to the amount of his supplementary benefit. Previously in the top bracket a recipient could be on a benefit of $21 and have his supplementary benefit drop to $16.80. That was a drop of $4.20. Now it will be a drop from $24 to $16.80 which, as I suggested, is all the more painful. For the reasons the
[Mr. Gregg.l

hon. member for Hamilton West has put forward, it does seem to me that there should have been at least a proportionate increase in these benefits along with the regular benefits.
While I am on my feet may I say, recognizing again that it is only a minor point, that we are glad to have the confusion that existed in this section resolved in the same manner that it has been resolved with respect to section 31. When the minister was on his feet a moment ago he said that the deduction of one cent was no longer made. That of course is just a way of calculating the benefit. There is no change in the amount paid in for the supplementary benefits. The only change that has been made is that the unemployed person will find the amount of his benefit directly opposite the cents per day he is paying in instead of having to go up one line as was the case in the confused table we had before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Duration of supplementary benefit.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 15 is the one that extends the period for entitlement to supplementary benefits to three and a half months instead of three months in the early part of the year, and that of course is a welcome change. Would the minister comment on the words that have been added in line 14 which are underlined, namely "and for no other period"? I should like to be sure that these words do not impose any limitation not already applicable to the supplementary benefit. Things like this do sneak in sometimes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am informed that it was not intended to impose any limitation whatsoever on a person who is qualified for any one class but rather that it was for clarification.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clarification of what?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It was intended to clarify the practice which is already in effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At this time of day I guess I may as well let the minister off.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-No discrimination in referring to employment.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: As I said at the resolution stage, I am very pleased that the minister has seen fit to put this subsection in the act. The only point I want to make is that of course this is merely a declaration of intention. There are no regulations. It is possibly in the nature of a pious hope; and while I think there is no doubt that the regional offices will be properly instructed in the usual course of events with respect to this

section, I wonder if the minister would give consideration to having this new section properly publicized in a general way so the workers of Canada will know that this clause has been inserted in the act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. When passed these
amendments will be fully publicized through the Labour Gazette and other media.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We too feel that this section should not pass without a word of approval from our group. We are indeed glad to see this provision being written into the statute. As the hon. member for Hamilton West has pointed out, there are further steps that could be taken in the field of fair employment practices legislation, but we heartily welcome the addition of this subsection to section 88 of the act. The hon. member for Hamilton West suggested that this subsection does not carry with it any power to make regulations. May I suggest that if regulations are necessary or would be useful to carry out the intent of the new section 88, subsection 3, it seems to me that is covered by section 97 (t) of the act which reads as follows:
. . . the commission may also make regulations (t) generally for carrying this act into effect.
If any such regulations are necessary to give definite effect to this intention I would hope that they will be made.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct. Our understanding is that if it is found necessary the unemployment insurance commission can make regulations under that section to carry the intention of the act into effect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Coming into force.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: On clause 1 of the bill I proposed an amendment which the chairman said might be considered under this section. At that time the minister made two points by way of explanation with respect to the amendment being in order. While I concede that on the ground of expenditure there may be something in what he said, I claim that unless it is possible for a member to propose additional clauses to a bill amending an act then there is no opportunity to make suggestions for the amendment of an act except at the instigation of the government. Without any further debate I should like to ask that the amendment I have proposed be considered.


A. Earl Catherwood: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I think the hon. member for Hamilton West since coming here has made a real contribution to the representation of labour in the House of Commons. I think her amendment 55704-215i
Unemployment Insurance Act to the effect that a woman should be appointed to the unemployment insurance commission should certainly be given consideration. I believe her contention is sound particularly in view of the fact that women are playing an increasingly important part in the business and industrial life of the country and also, we are happy to say, in political life. I trust that every consideration will be given to her recommendation; but if you think the amendment is out of order, Mr. Chairman, then I hope the minister will seriously consider the matter before the next session of parliament.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: If I may I
should like to add a few words to the comments the minister has made concerning the proposed amendment. My personal view is that if the amendment were to carry it could not be administered in a satisfactory way because under present practice the advisory committee is composed of eight persons, four of whom represent workers' organizations and four of whom represent management organizations. I fail to see how we could make it mandatory on either the workers' group or the employers' group to have a lady delegate to represent them on the board. So far it has been the policy to leave absolute discretion to these national organizations who send the delegates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member not confused? This refers not to the board, but to section 4, namely the set-up of the unemployment insurance commission itself.


Paul-Émile Côté: I am sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just straightening the member out.


Paul-Émile Côté: One member of the board represents the workers and one the employers. It has been left absolutely to their discretion to send the delegate they choose, without any qualification. I cannot see how we could make it mandatory either on the employers' side or the workers' side to restrict their choice of member.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I interrupt to say I covered that point. The only reason I asked for an additional member was that I realized that you cannot tamper with their selection of delegates to the commission.


Paul-Émile Côté: Yes, but I come to this point. If another member is added, that would disturb the proper balance of the board. As I mentioned, it consists of two members plus a chairman appointed by the government. If I may I would like to mention to my hon. friend that on the various employment committees we have across the country, on the national level, the regional level and the local level there has been representation of women all along. If my hon.

Unemployment Insurance Act friend is interested I would like to put on the record the representatives that actually sit on those boards. On that national employment committee we have Mrs. G. D. Finlay-son, vice-president of the national council of women of Canada. On the regional employment committee for the Atlantic region we have Mrs. G. O. Spencer of Moncton, also of the national council of women.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Might I interrupt to say it would make this more interesting if the parliamentary assistant in giving the names of these people would say what their respective occupations are.


The Chairman:: Order. If the amendment is declared to be in order then debate may be carried on, but on the other hand if I am of the opinion that the amendment is not in order I cannot entertain any discussion except that which has to do with the point of order itself. I do not think that at the moment the parliamentary assistant is speaking to the point of order.


Paul-Émile Côté: I agree, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to be as courteous as possible to my hon. friend in view of the interesting suggestion she has made. I do not think it would be practical, and I fully subscribe to the comments of the minister a little while ago when he said that in his opinion the amendment was out of order because it involved the expenditure of public money.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I say that when anything new is proposed it is said either to be impractical or that the applicant is demonstratively unsuited for the job, or there is some other such vague illusion. I refuse to concede that this appointment would be impractical. I think it would be highly practical and that a suitable person could be found to fill the position. That person would not necessarily have to be suggested by the employers or the workers but would have full knowledge of women's working conditions in Canada. That member would not be appointed because of general interest in local conditions but rather in national conditions.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. In the course of the discussion on clause 1 the hon. member for Hamilton West moved that the following section be added to the bill:
That section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended:
(a)	by substituting the word "four" for the word "three" in the third line thereof and
(b)	by deleting all the words after the word "council" in the fourth line thereof and substituting the following: "one of whom shall be a chief commissioner and one of whom shall be a woman."
IMr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle).]
The section if amended would read:
This act shall be administered by a commission to be called "The Unemployment Insurance Commission," which shall consist of four commissioners, who shall be appointed by the governor in council, one of whom shall be a chief commissioner and one of whom shall be a woman.
My predecessor in the chair earlier in the day, the deputy chairman, suggested to the hon. member for Hamilton West that this addition of a section to the bill might more properly be considered after consideration of section 20, since it is an addition to the bill. Citation 670, as it appears in Beauchesne's third edition, page 232, confirms that view. It says:
In committee all the clauses of the bill are considered before any new clauses are brought up and added to the bill. But this practice is not rigorously followed and the committee is generally guided by what is most convenient in each particular case.
I think he was quite right in considering that it was more convenient to discuss this after dealing with section 20 since it is an addition to the bill.
A point of order has been raised by the Minister of Labour, that the amendment would not be in order because it would give the government a direct order to expend some additional money. It would increase the financial responsibility of the government. I have looked at the act and find that the addition of one member would make an additional expenditure of $9,000 a year since that is the present salary of each of the commissioners who are now appointed. Therefore it is a case upon which decisions have been rendered on many occasions in the past. Perhaps I might refer hon. members to citation 453 which appears in Beauchesne's third edition at page 171 and which reads as follows:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons, for the past twenty-five years, to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money.
Citation 437 of Beauchesne's third edition, page 167, reads in part:
No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
From time to time rulings based on these citations have been appealed. I have one in mind which appears at page 306 of the Journals for Tuesday, 29th November, 1949, when Bill No. 194 was under consideration in the committee of the whole. The hon. member for Assiniboia moved at that time that clause 4, subclause 2 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "fifty per centum'' and by substituting therefor the words "seventy-five per centum". The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on

the ground that it increased the financial responsibility of the government. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appealed from the ruling of the chairman, and that ruling was sustained.
Basing my ruling on the citations I have just quoted, I am sorry but I must declare the amendment out of order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course I bow to the ruling of the chair; but I can only ask the minister to consider this matter very carefully before next year, as was already suggested by the hon. member for Haldimand, because I believe it is a problem that must be considered in the days which are to come. The participation of women in the working classes is becoming increasingly prevalent and I ask the minister to take this under consideration. If there is any way in which I can assist I will be only too glad to do so.


Mr. Dupuis:: I have a question to ask the minister, but I wonder whether this is the right time to ask it. Is the suggestion made in some circles of giving benefits to people on strike receiving proper study and consideration by the unemployment insurance commission?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. That question does not come within the scope of this bill. The hon. member may ask the question when the estimates of the Department of Labour are before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Milton Fowler Gregg: the third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before the motion is
put for third reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker, may	I	say just a further
word to the Minister of Labour. I appreciate, although I do not agree with, the stand he has taken with respect to our oft-repeated representations on behalf of the recipients of unemployment insurance benefits who become ill while they are in receipt of those benefits. I hope that, in spite of the stand he has taken today, he will give further consideration to the particular problem I have outlined to him on a number of occasions. If his further consideration leads him to feel he cannot change his opinion, I hope he has been impressed with the seriousness of this problem, as I am sure he has out of his own experience, and that he will come to the conclusion that something has to be done about it.
Northwest Territories Act
I hope the remarks made in this debate by my colleague the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) and others will impress themselves upon the minister's mind so he will realize, as I am sure he does, that this problem must be attended to soon. Accordingly I ask him to use what influence he can with his colleagues in the cabinet, and he knows whom I mean, for the early introduction of a nation-wide health insurance program, including a provision for sickness benefits.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 337, respecting the Northwest Territories.
He said: Hon. members will recall that at the second last session of parliament a number of amendments were made to the Northwest Territories Act. Recognizing the continued and healthy growth of the territories, the principal amendment provided to the citizens of the territories the opportunity to elect three out of the total of eight members of the territorial council. The election was held under the supervision of the chief electoral officer, and the three newly elected members joined with their five appointed colleagues at the first meeting of the council ever to be held in the territories. It assembled in Yellowknife on December 10, 1951, and its opening was attended by proper ceremonial. The citizens of Yellowknife, through the warmth of their reception, their interest and enthusiasm, showed clearly that they welcomed this evidence of their new status.
The Northwest Territories Act was first passed in 1869. There have been several revisions and consolidations since then. The last revision was in 1927. The present Northwest Territories Act is contained in chapter 142 of the Revised Statutes of 1927, and four amending acts were passed in 1938, 1940, 1948 and 1951. The legislative powers conferred upon the commissioner in council by the present act are set out in sections 9 and 10, which confer upon the commissioner in council legislative jurisdiction over most of the subjects in which, under the British North America Act, the various provinces of Canada have jurisdiction.
There are several other matters in respect of which provinces usually have jurisdiction

Northwest Territories Act and in respect of which it is now proposed to confer jurisdiction upon the commissioner in council of the territories. These are roads, wills, the property of married women, coroners and inquests, controverted elections, the manufacture and possession of intoxicants, the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, and agriculture. At the present time all these matters are within the jurisdiction only of parliament. However, with the rapid progress in economic development in the territories and the substantial increase in population consequent thereto, it is now considered desirable to authorize the legislature of the territories to deal with these matters, and to repeal sections of the Northwest Territories Act dealing specifically with them.
In the past there has not been, nor is there now, statutory provision for the establishment of a consolidated revenue fund into which territorial revenues from direct taxation within the territories are paid and out of which disbursements for territorial purposes may be made. It is therefore proposed that there be in the Northwest Territories Act a provision for a territorial revenue account which will be maintained as a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
The territorial court was disestablished in 1905, when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were created out of the territories. Since that time judicial functions, both civil and criminal, have been exercised by stipendiary magistrates, who have the powers, authorities and functions which were vested in a judge of the supreme court of the Northwest Territories prior to its disestablishment. The increase in population in recent years has resulted in an increase in the number of civil and criminal cases requiring trial by an experienced judge. It is therefore now considered desirable to re-establish the territorial court. It is proposed that the judge of the territorial court of the Yukon Territory will be ex officio the judge of the territorial court of the Northwest Territories, thus providing for the proper trial of cases without the necessity of appointing an additional judge. Corollary thereto, it is proposed also to provide for the appointment of police magistrates, in whom will be vested power to try minor civil and criminal cases, and who will have jurisdiction comparable to that exercised by police magistrates in the provinces. The present stipendiary magistrates resident in the territories will be appointed police magistrates.
Consequent upon the re-establishment of the territorial court, it is also proposed to
IMr. Winters.]
redefine the areas in respect of which provincial courts have concurrent jurisdiction with territorial courts. At the present time the superior courts of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have in all parts of the territories east of the 89th meridian, and the superior courts of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have in all parts of the territories west of the 89th meridian, the same jurisdiction in civil matters arising in the territories as they have in respect of matters arising within the territorial limits of their ordinary jurisdiction. This has in some cases led to abuse. For example, writs have been issued in Edmonton against residents of Aklavik, with the result that the defendants have been put to extraordinary expense in making their defence at a place so far from their normal place of residence. Aklavik, located on the Arctic ocean, is 1,300 miles from Edmonton and there are no highways or railways leading to it.
It is of course still desirable to provide concurrent jurisdiction for areas of the territories where the population is sparse. It is therefore proposed to limit concurrent jurisdiction to the superior courts of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in civil matters respecting persons and property in the territories east of the 102nd meridian, and to repeal the present provision for concurrent jurisdiction ini respect of matters arising west of the 102nd meridian.
Provision is made for appeals to the court of appeal of Alberta from judgments respecting matters in areas west of the 102nd meridian, and to the courts of appeal of the provinces exercising concurrent jurisdiction in matters arising east of the 102nd meridian. It might be helpful if I stated that the 89th meridian passes through Hudson bay and the 102nd meridian is the boundary between Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
This bill seeks authority to have jurisdiction conferred upon the commissioner in council with regard to the manufacture and possession of intoxicants. At the present time this jurisdiction is vested in parliament although the commissioner in council now has jurisdiction regarding the sale of liquor. This double jurisdiction has caused some confusion, and it is considered desirable to delete from the Northwest Territories Act provisions regarding the manufacture and possession of intoxicants, so that all legislation relating to the manufacture, possession and sale of intoxicants may be contained in one statute, namely the territorial liquor ordinance.

It is proposed to delete from the act a number of sections relating to criminal matters. These will now be contained in the revised Criminal Code.
Another section of the bill would confer upon the governor in council authority to make regulations concerning reindeer. As hon. members may be aware, since 1933 the government of Canada has maintained reindeer herds in the territories for the benefit of natives. There are now three herds managed by native herders. It is planned to establish at least two more during the next few years and it is therefore considered desirable to give to the governor in council authority to make regulations concerning such reindeer.
There are several other minor amendments which I do not think need be mentioned at this time.
The bill contains 48 sections. Of these only 23 either are new or embody substantial changes from the present act. The remaining 25 sections are included chiefly to effect a consolidation and embody no substantial changes in the provisions of the present act.
The present act with amendments to date contains 117 sections. Seventy-two sections have been dropped. As mentioned, these sections refer to criminal law, coroners and juries, married women's property, wills and other miscellaneous subjects, all of vJhich are adequately covered in other legislation or will be covered by territorial ordinance.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill can be welcomed by the house in that it is merely bringing up to date what is in fact the constitution of the Northwest Territories. I would hope to see in the near future the ratio of the elected members to appointed members of the council increased in favour of the elected members. However, as the area of the territory is so vast one cannot as yet treat the area in the same way a province is treated; and possibly one will not be able to do so for many years to come.
The other hope one can have is for the establishment of a superior court in the territory. I realize that this also is a matter of difficulty. In the past litigants have suffered tremendous hardships in travelling to the superior courts of the various provinces. The distances even in the territories are greater than that across the Atlantic ocean. That illustration will give the house some idea, perhaps, of the tremendous size of the territory involved.
In passing I should like merely to mention the job that was done in driving the reindeer herd. There have been a number of scientists and other men such as explorers who have done a job which I think is unique in all
Northwest Territories Act the history of treks. For seven years the reindeer on which the economy of the Eskimo so largely depends were driven from their original feeding grounds into the eastern Arctic. The epic of the drive of those reindeer herds is, in my opinion, one of the great sagas in the history of the north.
I welcome this bill. If there are any objections to it, I feel they can be dealt with as we go through the bill clause by clause.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. McCulloch in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. McLure:: Under the definition of intoxicants in paragraph (e) would come certain hair lotions or hair tonics. There is one in particular that is being used a great deal today, from which a drink is made. It is called "shako". The reason it is called "shako" is that those who use it are obliged to take it out of a bottle similar to that which the barber uses, and to take it out by drops. But judging by the arrests made for drunkenness it is the most potent thing on the market today. If anyone wants to get a real kick from intoxicating beverages I am sure that he will find that "shako"-if it is not prohibited according to this definition-will give him a real one, according to police records. I should like to know from the minister whether the definition which mentions these various things such as drinkable liquids, preparations or mixtures, would include any of those hair tonics that half the people are getting drunk on today.


Robert Henry Winters: It would, Mr. Chairman. If it were a drinkable liquid such as "shako" and then was used as an intoxicant, in that case it would.


Mr. Herridge:: I am rather intrigued by paragraph (e) of section 2. The wording is rather interesting to me. It reads to this effect:
. . . and all drinks, drinkable liquids, preparations or mixtures capable ol human consumption that are intoxicating.
Will the minister explain to the committee the difference between "drinks" and "drinkable liquids"? Does that wording not seem to be superfluous?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot suggest any difference at the moment between drinks and drinkable liquids. This section was taken in toto from a similar section in the Indian Act, and the wording is the same.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It does seem redundant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Northwest Territories Act
On section 13-Legislative powers.
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Is paragraph (r) the same as in the other act? It says there is no change in substance from section 12 of the old act in regard to education.


Robert Henry Winters: This is the same as section 12 of the old act. There is no change in wording.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Laws of England.
Percy Chapman Black: I am not a member of the legal profession, but I should like to know why they are taking as their authority the laws of England rather than the laws of the provinces, federal laws, the Criminal Code, and so on? It says:
Subject to this act, the laws of England, relating to civil and criminal matters . . .


Robert Henry Winters: If the hon. member reads all of section 2 he will see the reason for that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
On section 19-Territorial revenues.
A. Earl Catherwood: Will the minister explain the reason the change is made so that all territorial revenues shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund? What would be the advantage of that system?


Robert Henry Winters: It is to regularize the accounting procedure. Prior to the time this legislation will have been enacted the revenue accumulates in the consolidated revenue fund in some instances; in other instances and as in the case of liquor the revenue is paid into what was known as the territorial liquor fund. We are now seeking to establish the practice of putting all territorial revenues into a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund where revenues and expenditures will be centralized.


Mr. Brooks:: What relation is there between the expenditures and the revenues of the Northwest Territories? Is there any? Will the revenues in any way pay for the expenditures?


Robert Henry Winters: No; the expenditures are still quite considerably higher than the revenues obtained directly from the Northwest Territories. The other night when the resolution was being considered I put the figures on record. I think they are of the order of ten to one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On section 28-Meaning of Court of Appeal.
William Joseph Browne: Subsection 2 reads:
Subject to subsection 3, an appeal lies from the final judgment of a judge of the court to the appropriate court of appeal in any civil case where (g) the action is for divorce or judicial separation.
With respect to the section which was referred to by the hon. member for Cumberland in regard to the laws of England, did the laws of England in 1870 grant divorce?


Robert Henry Winters: They did.


William Joseph Browne: Is that the reason for this section?


Robert Henry Winters: There is no change here. The provision has always been the same.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You have been going so fast that I have not been able to keep up. I wanted to ask a question on section 27. How is the grand jury paid?


Robert Henry Winters: The section says that no grand jury shall be summoned or sit in the territory.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No grand jury?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 29 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-Appointment.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: With reference to the appointment of magistrates, can they be appointed from any province in Canada outside the Northwest Territories, provided that there are not sufficient barristers in the Northwest Territories? I would ask the same question with regard to the appointment of judges.


Robert Henry Winters: The answer is yes, from any part of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
On section 34-Civil jurisdiction.
Percy Chapman Black: I think we will all agree that you are doing your part in enacting very profound legislation, Mr. Chairman, with the help of the members who are present. I refer to the speed with which you are accomplishing your task.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have to interrupt the hon. member. I would like to hear the remarks he is now making. I think they are addressed to me. Would he be kind enough to speak louder, please?


Percy Chapman Black: I do not know that I can assist, Mr. Chairman. I was complimenting you and other hon. members on the task you are performing in enacting

Northwest Territories Act
very profound legislation with the help of hon. members who are present. That is all I was saying. You are calling section after section, and we do not know, until you have called it and gone on to the next section, just what is being enacted. I suppose someone has to be complimented. You being the chairman, we compliment you.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would it help the hon. member if I called these clauses slower? If the rate I am calling them is too fast I will very gladly slow down. The hon. member will realize that when I call a clause and nobody rises I cannot wait until some hon. member makes up his mind to speak up five or ten minutes after the clause is called.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
On section 36-Appointment.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Subsection 2 of section 36 reads:
Every commissioned officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is, when he is in the Territories, ex officio, a justice of the peace in and for the territory.
My question is this. Commissioned officers in the territories would be few and far between. Because of that fact, is there any possibility that a man might be arrested on a charge as a result of the action of a commissioned officer in the territories, and then find that at the same time that commissioned officer would be trying the case as a justice of the peace, even indirectly?


Robert Henry Winters: In practice that particular officer would not sit in judgment, and that condition would not arise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
On section 38-Prisons in the territories.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I note from the clause that any imprisonment up to two years may be made in the territories. In connection with more serious crimes, is provision made for confinement in any other penitentiary in the dominion? Is it necessary to have a clause in the act to that effect? I do not see one.


Robert Henry Winters: No. Provision is made and it is taken care of in the Penitentiaries Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the
consent of the committee to be allowed to ask a question with regard to section 27 which says that no grand jury shall be summoned or sit in the territories. If I have the consent may I ask this question? My understanding is that the grand jury is usually regarded as filling a useful function. May I be informed on that?


Robert Henry Winters: That is exactly the same provision as is now contained in section 41(2) of the act. There is no change in wording or substance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister go farther and say it has been considered on its merits, and that it was not thought to be needed or desired?


Robert Henry Winters: It has been considered on its merits, and has not been found necessary up to the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
On section 40-Roads; subject to control of commissioner.
Percy Chapman Black: I notice that this section refers to roads, streets, lanes and trails. What is proposed with respect to the construction of roads and streets in this enormous area? Are there to be special appropriations in the estimates to provide for streets in small communities? Who will be responsible for the expenditure of those moneys? What engineers are there in the area, including the built-up communities? Have those areas been surveyed, with due regard to their natural resources, mineral developments and the like?


Robert Henry Winters: All the communities have been surveyed and laid out. Some of them are a good size, the largest being Yellowknife, Fort Smith and Hay River. The system of providing roads is one which has grown up over the years. In most cases each project was treated on its merits. Today this has been somewhat regularized, so that the roads have been divided into three general classifications.
The first of these is resource roads. These are roads intended to enable the resources of the area to flow into the economy of Canada, and they are considered to be the responsibility of the federal government. They are built and maintained out of funds appropriated by parliament.
The second classification is that of trunk roads. These are roads connecting two settlements or two administrative districts, and they are considered primarily to be the responsibility of the territorial government. But here, too, depending upon the circumstances and merits of the case, the federal government may participate both in respect of capital cost in the first instance and the cost of maintenance in the second place.
The third classification is that of local roads. These are roads within settlements, such as roads within the administrative district of Yellowknife. They are the responsibility of the local administrative district.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
3412
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
On section 41-Regulations respecting reindeer.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What are the regulations with reference to the moving of the herds of reindeer? Are they all in one district at the present time, or are they transferred to different districts? How many animals can be killed for the benefit of the Eskimos or the Indians each year? Then I am in some doubt as to the meaning of the words "part thereof" where they occur in that part of the section which reads:
Where a peace officer or any person who is a game officer under any ordinance has reasonable grounds for believing that any reindeer or part thereof has been taken.


Robert Henry Winters: The expression "part thereof" normally applies to reindeer heads taken as trophies.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Ludwik Bulkiewicz.
An act for the relief of Jean Betton Harris.
An act for the relief of Violet Mary Bailey Black.
An act for the relief of Corinne Larocque Sergent.
An act for the relief of Omer Montpetit.
An act for the relief of Ismena Archange Labatt Chipman.
An act for the relief of Rose Larocque Crawford.
An act for the relief of Gladys Lucille Jane Annal Williams.
An act for the relief of Emily Amelia Ahern Manhire.
An act for the relief of Margaret Joyce Berryman Thomas.
An act for the relief of Lillian Deutsch Payne.
An act for the relief of Murdoch Graham Nicholson.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Antoinette Sophie Helena Kessler Meyer.
An act for the relief of John Stachyshyn.
An act for the relief of Theodora Dunska Williams.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Mary Winn Nelson.
An act for the relief of Roger Pilon.
An act for the relief of Winnifred Shirley Nice Perry.
An act for the relief of Ursula Runge Kniewel Fijalkowski.

An act for the relief of Bella Sybil Feinman Brenton.
An act for the relief of Helen Kouri Cumas.
An act for the relief of Cora Marguerite Blume.
An act for the relief of Marie Maude Louise Ladriere Cook Tooby, otherwise known as Marie Maude Louise Ladriere Cook-Salisbury Tooby.
An act for the relief of Laetitia Daigneault Martel.
An act for the relief of James Alexander Ford.
An act for the relief of Joseph Gerard Abondius Fauvel.
An act for the relief of Richard Patenaude.
An act for the relief of Francoise Bellehumeur Dixon.
An act for the relief of Cynthia Daphne Roberts Gagne.
An act for the relief of Dorothy May Tucker Patterson.
An act for the relief of Reginald Clare Darrah.
An act for the relief of Marjie Weston Frost Law.
An act for the relief of Carmen Verna Garcia Copping.
An act for the relief of Edna Ruth Dowsett Young.
An act for the relief of Eleanor Mary Courtney Flannery.
An act for the relief of Florence (Fannie Ruth) Sacks Roitman.
An act for the relief of William Wallace Watson.
An act for the relief of Russell James Barrett.
An act for the relief of Alice Sabria O'Connor Muskett.
An act for the relief of Julia Emma Pearl Sager
Noiseux.
An act for the relief of David Gilmore Bennett.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Hilda Turk Woodall.
An act for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Cate Lowe.
An act for the relief of Aldea Gendreau Bourbonnais.
An act for the relief of Peter Ernest Walker.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Kearns Bradley.
An act for the relief of Sarah Bernstein Smith.
An act for the relief of Margaret Gladys Redman Glassco.
An act for the relief of Louise Joslyn Smith
Harvey-Jellie.
An act for the relief of Bertha Naujoks Stehr.
An act for the relief of Margit Aloisia Payer Worontschak.
An act for the relief of Leo Kendall.
An act for the relief of Tom Barnard Clayton Gould.
An act for the relief of Helene Laura Solomon Wiseberg.
An act for the relief of Joan Borland White.
An act for the relief of John Laurence McDonough.
An act for the relief of Jean Wiseman Schwartz.
An act for the relief of Judith Sorel Riven Gains-bury.
An act for the relief of Agnes Bertha Baugh Guimont.
An act for the relief of Genevieve Flora Agatha Brown Smith.
An act for the relief of Marcelle Alice Beliveau Martin.
An act for the relief of Marcel Despatis.
An act for the relief of Joseph Wilfrid Ernest Senecal.
An act for the relief of John Harold Roger Wright.
An act for the relief of Agathe Neubauer Lands-berg.
An act for the relief of Norma May Attridge Chilton.
An act for the relief of Andrea Gendron Repper.
An act for the relief of Edith Bessie Franks Parsons.

An act for the relief of Annie Teresa Nash Pelltari.
An act for the relief of Mary Clemence Morice Waldbauer.
An act for the relief of John Gordon Smithers.
An act for the relief of Libby Levine Bloom.
An act for the relief of Shirley Israel Thau.
An act for the relief of Ralph Patrick Barker.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Kostick Glock.
An act for the relief of Olive Myrtle Weston Rouet.
An act for the relief of John William Day.
An act for the relief of Marcelle Marchand Adams.
An act for the relief of Marie Marguerite Germaine Aubert Forest.
An act for the relief of Betty Lauraine Conner Norell.
An act for the relief of Francoise Marguerite Beaudin Patrick.
An act for the relief of Greta Mildred Duncan Croteau.
An act for the relief of Leo Bercovitch.
An act for the relief of Joseph Raymond Demers.
An act respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to amend the Excise Act, 1934.
An act respecting the establishment of a National Library.
An act to amend The Tariff Board Act.
An act to amend The Canada Elections Act.
An act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Terrace to Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia.
An act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
An act to amend The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act respecting the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence.
An act respecting a certain patent application of The Garrett Corporation.
An act to incorporate The Great Eastern Insurance Company.
An act respecting The Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
An act to incorporate Equitable Fire Insurance Company of Canada.
An act to incorporate The National Dental Examining Board of Canada.
The Royal Assent
An act to amend The Income Tax Act.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act to amend The Canada-France Income Tax Convention Act, 1951.
An act to amend the Aeronautics Act.
An act to amend The Dominion Succession Duty Act.
An act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1951, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.
An act for the Control of Traffic on Government Property.
An act to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
An act to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings) .
An act to amend the Cold Storage Act.
An act to amend The Canada Dairy Products Act.

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.


Percy Chapman Black: Could we have a word from the man who directs our shortcomings about what we are to do tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the motion in the name of the Prime Minister concerning pensions to long service members of the House of Commons and refer the subject matter to the standing committee on banking and commerce. Then if I have the co-operation of my friend perhaps we might complete Bill No. 337, respecting the Northwest Territories, which we did not pass today. Then we will take up the estimates of fisheries, mines and technical surveys, external affairs and secretary of state.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.10 p.m.

Thursday, June 19, 1952