1952-05-28

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I should like to table two copies of the progress report on the Colombo plan which was prepared by the consultative committee at its fourth meeting held at Karachi in March of this year.



QUESTIONS


FILM PRODUCTION


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence a separate unit for making moving pictures apart from the national film board?
2.	If so (a) what are the reasons for this apparent duplication; (b) what was the total cost of the unit in the past fiscal year; (c) what is the estimated cost of the unit for the coming year?
3.	How many employees are presently working for this branch of the department?
4.	Did the unit make a film of the royal tour in addition to the film made by the national film board on the same subject?
5.	If so, at what cost?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	No. However, service photographers, when authorized, take motion pictures for national defence use as part of their regular photographic duties.
2.	(a) Footage taken by these photographers are for record of training purposes to record on-the-spot activities where arrangements could not be made for coverage by nonservice personnel, or where such arrangements would not be feasible, (b) See answer to No. 1. (c) See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
4.	With the agreement and co-operation of the national film board, a film showing the participation of the three services in the royal tour was made from footage taken by two service photographers. This film which is 16 mm. has been shown to a large number of service establishments including the R.C.N. destroyers in Korean waters, the 25th brigade in Korea and the 27th brigade in Germany which for the most part do not have 35 mm. equipment.
5.	The cost of this film including travelling expenses, cost of film and production work done outside the Department of National Defence arranged through the national film board, but excluding pay and allowances of the service personnel involved, totalled $5,566.30.



SALT CODFISH


Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: 1.	What amounts of salt codfish of the following
kinds were sold1 to merchants in Newfoundland, during the fishing season from August 1, 1951, to April 30, 1952;	(a) large madeira; (b) medium
madeira; (c) small madeira; (d) large west india; (e) medium west india; (f) small west india; (g) thirds?
2.	What prices were paid for each variety on the average and what deduction was made for damp and' dun fish?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1. The department does not have a full record of all salted codfish sold to merchants in Newfoundland from August 1, 1951, to April 30, 1952, but a study conducted by the fisheries prices support board covering 244,602 quintals shows the following amounts in the
grades specified:
(a) and	(b)	combined	 19,098
(c)		 116,289
(d)	and	(e)	combined	 935
(f)		 15,144
(g)		 59,358
2.	$ per
quintal
(a) and	(b)	combined	 11.13
(c)		 10.67
(d)	and	(e)		 5.31
(f)		 4.82
(g)		 9.14



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


ARMED FORCES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts for the defence forces were let for rubber and canvas footwear, from January 1, 1950 to May 1, 1952?
2.	To whom were they let?
3.	What were the amounts of the contracts?
4.	How many pairs in each contract?

Questions




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts for the defence forces were let for rubber, synthetic rubber or synthetic footwear, from January 1, 1950 to May 1, 1952?
2.	To whom were they let?
3.	What were the amounts of the contracts?
4.	How many pairs in each contract?




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts for the defence forces were let for haversacks, from January 1, 1950, to May 1, 1952?
2.	To whom were they let?
3.	What were the amounts of the contracts?
4.	How many haversacks in each contract?




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for the defence forces, during the period January 1, 1950, to May 1, 1952, for (a) battledress blouses; (b) battledress trousers?
2.	To whom were these contracts let?
3.	What is the value of each contract?
4.	What is the number of garments in each contract?



ARMED FORCES-CONTRACTS FOR CARVING KNIVES

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for the defence forces, during the period January 1, 1950, to May 1. 1952, for carving knives?
2.	To whom were they let?
3.	What is the value of each contract?
4.	How many carving knives in each contract?



CANNED PORK

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many pounds of canned pork have been produced in Canada from January 1, 1952, to May 1, 1952?
2.	How many pounds of canned pork have been purchased by the government during the same period, and at what price?
3.	What quantity of canned pork has the government sold during the same period, what was the price received, and who were the principal purchasers?
4.	What quantity of canned pork does the government presently hold for sale?



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts have been let between January 1, 1950, and May 1, 1952, for the defence forces, for belts; (a) canvas or canvas and leather; (b) leather?
2.	To whom were they let?
3.	What is the value of each contract, and how many belts in each contract?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of civilian security forms CCC 315 and CCC 99A in current use.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the parliamentary assistant to the minister about this motion, and I would appreciate it if, by leave of the house, it might be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



C. G. S. &quot;STONETOWN&quot; INJURY TO MEMBER OF CREW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport to whom I have sent notice. Has he any information regarding the injury to a member of the crew of the weather ship Stonetown which necessitated the dispatch of the cruiser Ontario? I am particularly interested in this question because I called attention to the living conditions of the crews of these ships only last week.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: The
hon. member was good enough to give notice of his intention to ask this question. Consequently we sent a telegram to Vancouver and learned that H.M.C.S. Ontario did make rendezvous early this morning with the C.G.S. Stonetown and took aboard the injured waiter. I understand that the injury resulted from the young waiter falling on a hydrant and injuring himself near where he had recently had an abdominal operation. Medical attention is being given on the Ontario, and I understand his condition is satisfactory.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries or his parliamentary assistant. I have already spoken to the parliamentary assistant about it. There was an article in Sunday's issue of the New York Times in which reference was made to the bounties paid through the Canadian Department of Fisheries for protection of fish against depredations by sea lions on the Pacific coast and by seals on the Atlantic coast. Does that policy apply to the waters around Newfoundland?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member did not follow the usual custom of sending notice of his question.


William Joseph Browne: On a point of order, I spoke to the parliamentary assistant about the matter twice.


Mr. Abbott:: Put it on the order paper.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If the hon. member will
refer to item 155 of the estimates he will find that there is an amount of $45,000 provided for the destruction of harbour and grey seals. This is an increase of $15,000 over last year. The $15,000 is provided for the destruction of harbour seals in Newfoundland waters.



MARTIAL LAW IN SOUTH KOREA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice. It arises out of a dispatch in today's press. Will the minister make a statement on the present situation in South Korea with particular reference to Syngman Rhee's declaration of martial law? What efforts are being made by the United Nations commission for the unification and rehabilitation of Korea-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to impress upon the
authorities in South Korea the urgent need for the establishment-


An hon. Member:: Write a book.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and the pursuit of democratic processes in that country?


Mr. Speaker:: I was not able to hear the question.


An hon. Member:: You are lucky.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With respect to the first part of the question, we have received no official information on the reported declaration of martial law in South Korea, on its nature and its scope, and therefore I do not think it would be proper for me to make a statement on this subject at the present time. As to the second part of the question, there is a United Nations commission in Korea- the one referred to in the question-which from time to time offers assistance and advice to the government of the Republic of Korea on the observance of practices in keeping with the democratic form of government of that republic. That commission makes reports to the United Nations general assembly, and if the hon. member would like to see the last report I shall be glad to send it to him.



REFERENCE TO STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs
Inquiries of the Ministry whether or not he has found out what has caused the delay in the mails between Ottawa and Washington with respect to some of his recent correspondence with the United States government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As far as 1 know there has been no delay whatever in this matter. I assume the hon. member is referring to the statement which I made on Monday. That statement was in the hands of the United States state department in Washington, and indeed in the hands of the United States embassy in Ottawa, before it was given to the house.


Gordon Graydon: They must have lost it, then.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: I see the
parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour in his seat. I would ask him to tell the house what were the purposes and results of the recent apprenticeship conference sponsored by the federal government at Ottawa.


Mr. Paul E. Cole (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his question. The national conference on apprenticeship in trade and industry had a threefold purpose:
1.	To review the facts respecting the alleged shortage of apprentices and trainees in skilled trades in all parts of Canada.
2.	To review existing apprenticeship plans and training programs in all provinces with a view to increasing their effectiveness where needed, and extending such programs to a degree which would meet the needs of all skilled trades.
3.	To obtain suggestions and recommendations from representatives of employers, organized labour, teachers of trades, and provincial government officials occupied in administration of training, regarding the best methods of increasing the number of apprentices and trainees in skilled trades and of developing co-operative and co-ordinated activities for the promotion and development of apprenticeship training in Canada.
Speaking in a general way, the results of the conference were as follows: The immediate results of the conference have been to bring to the attention of all interested that Canadian industry is not in a favourable position in so far as the number of young men engaging as apprentices and trainees is concerned, and

Inquiries of the Ministry to bring forward suggested plans for improvement. Those who participated expressed satisfaction with the manner in which the conference was conducted, and also expressed the opinion that the conference would be beneficial in all parts of Canada. About seventy-five delegates were in full-time attendance representing employers in the manufacturing and construction trades, organized labour, and provincial and federal officials responsible for the administration of apprenticeship and training legislation. All provincial governments were represented. So far as the specific recommendations of the conference are concerned, wide publicity has been given to them in the newspapers, and we would be willing to give a copy of the minutes of the conference to any hon. member who would be interested in reviewing them.



ASSISTANCE ON FREIGHT RATES FROM WESTERN TO EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I have not given notice of this; question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has any consideration been given to any change in the policy of the government with respect to freight assistance on western grain shipped to eastern farmers?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: No further consideration has been given since the question was asked last.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Calgary West asked a question about orders issued to army units in the western command. I think the part of the order which gave rise to his question reads as follows:
It will rest with commanding officers to ensure that married officers and other ranks occupying married quarters or accommodation elsewhere in the vicinity are available under the same circumstances as those officers and other ranks living in barracks.
That is the end of the relevant part of the order. As I pointed out the other day, it was later made clear that that did not prevent officers and men who were living outside of the barracks from continuing to live there provided they were on duty by the first parade.



TARIFF BOARD ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of Bill No. 276, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 246, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on the resolution I outlined very briefly the amendments which are being proposed. I also referred to the work and responsibilities of the board of grain commissioners and to the problem of overages at country elevators. Two or three of the amendments really require very little more explanation than I have already given.
It is proposed to increase the salaries of the chief commissioner and of his fellow commissioners. Their present salaries were fixed in 1930. In view of the magnitude and importance of the board's operations, there can be no question that the increases are well warranted. Certainly they cannot be considered excessive as compared with the rise of general salary levels either in the public service or in business circles.
The amendment to provide for the reappointment of members of the board simply removes any room for doubt concerning the authority to make reappointments. The present section was not considered sufficiently clear in this respect.
The position of assistant commissioner for the eastern division-the lakehead-is to be dropped. Experience has shown that the duties of that position can very well be undertaken by the board and staff at the headquarters in Winnipeg. I am satisfied that the board's operations at the lakehead will in no way suffer as a result of this change. The same amendment proposes that henceforth the salaries of the assistant commissioners shall be fixed by the governor in council.
Section 85 of the Canada Grain Act specifies the form in which tickets and other documents used by elevator operators must appear. Hon. members from the prairie provinces will be familiar, for example, with the book in which

cash tickets are kept. Some elevator companies now are considering adopting the modern system of a continuous form used in a registering machine which keeps locked-in carbon copies and which has a number of advantages over the current form of book. The present wording of section 85, however, prevents the use of such a machine. It is therefore proposed, by amending section 15, to give the board of grain commissioners authority to permit the use, in the alternative, of such forms as may be approved by the board. At least one operator of a country elevator system is experimenting with the possibility of combining into one operation the issuance of the cash ticket and the wheat board's producer's certificate. At the present time the elevator agent has to complete the cash ticket on one form and the producer's certificate on another. Using the new type of continuous form it is proposed that the original copy will be the cash ticket; copies 2 and 3 will be the producer's certificate and the remaining copies will be the required additional copies of the cash ticket. Thus, in one operation, both forms will have been completed. I have in my office a copy of the proposed set of forms which I shall be pleased to show to any hon. member who is interested.
The Canada Grain Act now provides that the board of grain commissioners may make regulations and orders in respect of a number of matters, but it does not empower the governor in council to make regulations. It is desirable that such authority should be vested in the governor in council in order to permit speedy action to be taken when the occasion demands it. It is proposed, therefore, to provide the governor in council with the powers specified. The explanatory notes to the bill draw attention to the fact that it is occasionally impractical, or even physically impossible, to comply with some specific requirement of the act. There is probably no other major line of business in this country in which more unforeseen contingencies of one kind or another can arise than in that of getting the grain crops forwarded from the harvest fields to commercial positions. Serious emergencies inevitably occur from time to time. For example, in the situation that existed last autumn the terminal space at the lakehead was so urgently needed that it was impractical to carry out the weigh-overs within the period required by the Canada Grain Act. Other emergencies are bound to occur in future but it is not possible to forecast what form they will take.
As regards the questions of regulations, the board's power is limited to regulations
Canada Grain Act
or orders that "are not inconsistent with this act". The governor in council is to be given power to meet exceptional circumstances by issuing regulations of a type that the board is not authorized to make.
Hon. members will note that it is proposed that any regulation made by the governor in council, dispensing with a requirement of the act, shall automatically expire on the last day of the next succeeding session of parliament. If, therefore, the difficulty that gave rise to the regulation were of a permanent nature there would be opportunity to introduce at that session an appropriate amendment to the act. In most cases, however, the problems are likely to be of a temporary nature and the regulation by the governor in council would meet the situation without the necessity of subsequent amendment to the act.
Finally there is an amendment to effect some slight but necessary changes in the definition of certain grades of grain. The only changes are to insert the minimum weights per bushel of the various grades mentioned.
I believe the provisions of the bill are entirely non-contentious. There will be differences of opinion about matters not dealt with in the bill. But since this is an overhaul of the Canada Grain Act, after the bill receives second reading it will be referred to the committee on agriculture for further examination. If the committee decides to add to or to amend the bill the government will be prepared to give due consideration to such recommendations.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am pleased to hear the minister say that the bill will be referred to the committee on agriculture. As is realized, the duties and responsibilities of the board of grain commissioners are important and varied, as they have to do with the trade-in, storing, and transportation of grain in this country.
As I suggested before, I hope the minister will make it possible for the committee on agriculture to hear the views of the chief chemist who acts under the board in connection with the testing of grain, and has something to do with grading. It would be important to have this official appear before the committee, and also that we should hear officials from organized agricultural groups, such as the chief officials of the United Farmers of Canada, the Federation of Agriculture and others. They should be permitted to appear before the committee on agriculture and make recommendations and

Canada Grain Act
suggestions as to what should be done by way of amendment to the Canada Grain Act.
Their opinions vary. Some of them are not in agreement with the manner in which the act has been carried out, and I think it would be only right and proper that they should be given an opportunity to express their views. There has been considerable controversy in western Canada about the ultimate disposition of overages. The minister has said there would be no amendment in that respect. Nevertheless these people who have made a study of the matter should be permitted to make their recommendations. This bill is important to the grain producers in the prairie provinces. Because it is being referred to the committee on agriculture, I do not wish to speak at greater length now.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is going to let this bill go to the committee on agriculture, because this will save prolonged discussion in the house, and give hon. members an opportunity to go into the Canada Grain Act. For some things there will be approval, and for others disapproval; but in committee we will have an opportunity to express our views and to ask questions. I do not think I need to say more at this time.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, like hon. members who have spoken thus far in the debate, those of us in the Social Credit party welcome the amendments to the Canada Grain Act. This act has been developed over a number of years, and the improvements it has brought about have been of great assistance to the farmers, particularly those in the prairie provinces. I am glad the minister has promised to send it to the committee. I hope he will have people there to give us information.
I am glad also that the minister has said that consideration will be given to an amendment that might be suggested by that committee. While the act is not nearly as bad as it used to be, I believe there is still room for improvement. Perhaps by the time the committee and the house are finished with it, it will be in a more satisfactory condition than it is at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



TORONTO ISLANDS


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: More than two months ago, Mr. Speaker, I brought to the government's attention the very serious change that is taking place in the Toronto islands by virtue of erosion. I pointed out that if this damage was allowed to continue, the islands would disappear, and without their protection Toronto harbour would cease to exist. I urged the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to send an engineer to see what could be done in the way of building a breakwater and groynes to prevent further deterioration.
On May 9, in order to check up on the progress that had been made in this matter, I put a question on the order paper as follows:
Has the government received a report from the engineer sent to investigate the damage caused by flooding and erosion to the Toronto islands?
If so, what is the recommendation of the engineer for protective works to prevent further deterioration?
The answer I received to both of those questions was as follows:
Matter under investigation.
Having received that return, Mr. Speaker, today I phoned the mayor's office in Toronto to see just what sort of co-operation the city of Toronto was receiving from the federal authorities. I was told that, first of all, the situation with regard to the deterioration of the Toronto islands had become considerably worse in the last two months. Secondly, the government has given no indication whatever that it intends to accept any responsibility in this matter. The reply that I received to my question is therefore simply a parliamentary way of saying that the government is doing nothing in this matter; intends to do nothing; and simply hopes that the matter will be forgotten.
I should like once again to point out to this government that the Toronto harbour is a vitally important part of the St. Lawrence seaway project, and that, without the Toronto islands, the Toronto harbour would cease to exist. The preservation of the Toronto harbour is a federal responsibility. If the Toronto islands are allowed to deteriorate further, many times the cost of protecting them now will have to be spent later in providing protective works to make the continuance of Toronto harbour possible. I take this opportunity, therefore, of once again strongly urging the government to recognize its responsibility, and to undertake, in co-operation with the city of Toronto, the protective works that are necessary to prevent further deterioration of the Toronto harbour.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
315. General administration, $346,391.
Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one question that I should like to put to the Prime Minister. One should not indicate in advance that there might be any doubt as to his question being in order. It is a risky thing to do, but perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you will allow this question to be asked at this time. The reason I ask it on this item is that I believe the Massey report did come directly under the Prime Minister, and we are now dealing with the privy council, which is the Prime Minister's department.
Can the Prime Minister say, in more detail than he has by answering questions on the orders of the day, whether consideration is being given to the making of a reasonably generous grant to the dominion drama festival? I recognize that the recommendations of the Massey report with respect to that matter were not too precise or too definitive, but certainly there were suggestions to that effect. There are people in this country who are concerned over what has happened to the dominion drama festival recently because of its shortage of funds. I refer to the offer of certain interests which the festival directors deemed it necessary to accept. There are people who have protested against this acceptance, and I believe some of the protests may have reached the Prime Minister. Could he say whether further consideration has been given to that matter arising out of the government's study of the Massey report?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Chairman, consideration has been given to that matter, but it has been found it is not a matter that can be dealt with separately. I do not mean to suggest that there is any intention of waiting until we can propose as general a solution to the problem of culture as was reported in advance in a broadcast that was made Sunday night between 9 and 10 o'clock. But it is not probable that any appropriation will be asked from parliament at this session for the purposes of the drama festival or the encouragement of the Canadian ballet or other kindred matters.
It would not be possible to pick out any one or more of these community activities of a cultural nature until we have been able to look over the whole field, and recommend to parliament general principles according to which encouragement might be extended in a financial way to some and refused to others who would not be within the general principles approved by parliament.
Supply-Privy Council Mr. Knowles: I take it, then, that we can expect in due course further recommendations in the field of culture as covered by the Massey report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not quite catch the last words of the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We can anticipate further recommendations may come along in due course?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Further recommendations certainly will come along in due course. There is a realization on the part of the government that there is a wide interest throughout the whole of Canada in that field, but it was not found to be practicable to do' anything at once in any other field than that of aid to the universities and institutions of higher learning, which was done on an experimental basis, as the hon. member realizes, by the appropriation asked from parliament at the last session.
With respect to the others, the government has not only its own members but interdepartmental committees trying to devise the kind of formula which could be recommended to parliament and which would make it possible then to recommend grants to certain activities and to refuse them to certain other activities for valid reasons set out in the statement of principles or formula that would have been recommended to and approved by parliament.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I just ask one further question of the Prime Minister in connection with that matter? I appreciate the reason that universities were especially dealt with. I appreciate the difficulty of acting in advance of general principles being laid down. However, I ask the Prime Minister this question. Is it, as I understand it to be, a fact that the drama movement is perhaps, after a good many successful years, in danger not only of falling on evil days but perhaps of even coming to an end because of the failure of its resources? In other words, may I ask whether this may not possibly be an emergency measure different from others?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The reasons for treating it as an emergency situation were put to the government and were considered; and the conclusion arrived at was that we were not disposed to take the responsibility of recommending something to parliament until we could state what were going to be the general principles we felt should be established.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: At page 378 of the estimates I notice one or two changes in the staff, and I wanted to ask the Prime

Supply-Privy Council Minister about them. Referring to page 378, I notice that, compared with a year ago, apparently there is no item for secretary to the office of the Prime Minister nor for an administrative officer, grade 6. Then going further down the page, towards the end, I notice that for 1951-52 there is an item for messengers whereas the designation is now changed to confidential messengers. I wonder whether the work of the messengers is in any way changed.


Mr, St. Laurent:: There was no further statutory room for any increases in salaries under the classification of messengers, and really they are confidential messengers, because practically all the messages they have to carry are of a classified character. The civil service commission reclassified the men who were occupying those positions and placed them in the class of confidential messengers so that the appropriation which had hitherto been voted for messengers is being recommended to parliament this time under the heading of "confidential messengers".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: At the top of
page 379, I notice that last year there was an item of $75,000 for publication of consolidation of statutory orders and regulations and there is no similar item this year. Was that something which was just for one year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention at this time because I felt that it was desirable that I have the opportunity of giving some information to the committee about it.
This item of $75,000 was recommended and voted the last time for the French version of the consolidation of the orders and regulations, and it was fully expected that it would be expended before March 31. As a matter of fact, only a small portion of it was expended because the printing office had more urgent work to be done and has not yet completed this French version. When the estimates were prepared it was anticipated that this $75,000 which was voted last year would be expended and that there would be no requirement for anything of that character this year. It so happens, however, that most of it has lapsed and in the supplementary estimates there will have to be an item for that portion of the $75,000 which was not expended and which will come to be paid during the present fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Federal district commission-
318.	To provide for maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa, and to authorize an amount not exceeding $142,400 for construction, improvements, maintenance and operation of the parkway system, under
£Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
the control of the federal district commission which is additional to the sum of $300,000 granted by chapter 55, statutes of 1927, as amended, $433,794.
William Joseph Browne: Yesterday in the public accounts committee we had some discussion about the amount voted for the federal district commission, and it was stated by the Auditor General that each year there is a deficit because the grant is not sufficiently large to pay their expenses.


The Chairman:: Order. Have the proceedings of that committee been reported to the house?


William Joseph Browne: No, Mr. Chairman, they have not; but if I may say so, we are discussing this item at the present time and I am suggesting that if it is not large enough, it ought to be made larger.
I was going to point out that I think in the public accounts other revenue was shown from which they apply money to meet the deficit. I did not, however, rise especially to speak on that matter.
I understand that it is part of the duties of the federal district commission to look after the Mackenzie King bridge. I was wondering whether those who were responsible for advocating it could tell us whether the expenditure-which has been a large one-on that construction has been justified by the amount of traffic that is using it at the present time and whether there are any other plans for bringing a greater proportion of the traffic, especially at rush hours, across that bridge. From observations I have made from time to time, it seems to me that the bridge is not used a great deal.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The approaches on this side of the Mackenzie King bridge have not been completed. It was hoped that the structures that stand in the way could be taken down early this spring, but the Minister of Public Works has not yet found a place to put those public servants who now have their offices in the buildings. That is the reason why the approaches have not been completed.
I have been over the bridge on several occasions and I agree with the hon. gentleman that if there was not going to be more traffic over it than there is at the present time it would not have been justified. But these approaches are going to be provided just as soon as other accommodation can be found for the offices that are now in the structures that have to be torn down. I hope that will not be long, because in the meantime the public is not getting annual value for the amount of capital that has gone into the construction of the bridge. That situation should therefore not be allowed to continue for any longer than is necessary.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Further on the same subject, may I say that I am delighted to hear from the Prime Minister that no one is going to be put out from shelter which he now has in order to accommodate the traffic which is going over that bridge. I think what he says is manifestly true, namely that up to the present time traffic has been extremely light.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the operation and maintenance of Laurier house is under this item of the federal district commission or whether it is under public works?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman will remember the terms of the legislation which was passed last year. As I recollect it-and of course I am speaking now only from memory-it was public works that was to maintain the structures and the federal district commission was to maintain the grounds at Laurier house; but the legislation requires the Minister of Public Works to maintain the structures that are there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Any question as to the alterations of the building and the extent to which it is used as a centre of research would probably remain-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When Public Works
estimates are under consideration would be the time to ask about the alterations to the buildings.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Last year on this item I suggested two things: One, a revision of the federal district statute, which has been amended from time to time. Since that time I have consulted with the chairman of the federal district commission, and he has advised me it is the intention to look into the act and to make a report to the Prime Minister. The second thing I had in mind at the time was that since the work of the federal district commission and the national capital planning committee is very important and rather elaborate, and since the support of the house and of the public throughout Canada is very important toward the development of this district today, I think that not so much to investigate but rather to inform the members of this house it would be desirable that once in every parliament we should have an opportunity to bring the members of the federal district commission who are on the executive side before a committee to discuss their problems, and also their objectives. That was done a few years ago, I think, in two or three meetings before the banking and commerce committee in the other place. The suggestion is worth while, and if that were done hon. members and the public 55704-168J
Supply-Privy Council would realize the importance of the work much better than they do at the present time.
Some things have been said about the Mackenzie King bridge. I might be the lone rider on it from time to time, but I think in time the construction of the bridge will be justified. The approaches are not completed and the traffic has not been routed from other parts of the city. There is no doubt that it is a fine bridge and the people of Ottawa are very proud of it. I am quite sure that in time its construction will be justified.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I think the hon. gentleman will admit that the chairman of the federal commission is doing a great public service in the performance of his duties as such, just as his predecessors did, and the hon. gentleman is in frequent communication with the president. I can assure him that when he and the president come to me and tell me it would be of value to have a committee set up to enable hon. members to get information directly from the members of the commission, I shall be glad to give serious consideration to having that done as soon afterwards as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
319.	Expenses of the national planning committee, $45,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that this item was not wholly spent last year, can the Prime Minister indicate what the plans of this committee are for the ensuing year? Does he feel that the full amount is needed? I note from the details on page 380 that the estimate as to the total spent last year was a little less than $30,000, as against a vote of $45,000.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry that I cannot do any better than report to the committee that these estimates for the federal district commission were submitted by the chairman of the federal district commission, and that I know from past experience they do not spend more on the meetings of this planning committee than they feel is fully justified. There was only a little over $30,000 spent last year, but the recommendation was that we should make an appropriation of the same amount of $45,000 for this year. It may be that, as happened last year, it will not be wholly expended; but I would prefer that to be the situation than to have them come and ask for something additional out of the special vote that is always provided in the estimates of the Minister of Finance for unforeseen requirements. We are on the safe side, and I am sure that there will not be unnecessary expenditures, nor any effort to

Supply-Privy Council have the expenditure equal the appropriation, if that is not required by proper public interest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
320.	To authorize payment of the fifth instalment to a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, known as the national capital fund, established under vote No. 809, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Prime Minister tell us the state of this fund? This is the fifth payment into it. It would add up to quite a sum of money. Can he tell us how much has been spent and what projects are under contemplation at an early date?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry but 1 have not got the actual expenditures out of the fund. The amounts were given last year, and there have been certain expenditures out of the fund for the acquisition of further lands since that time. I know that as a fact, because I have to sign the recommendations to council for the approval of the projects that come from the federal district commission. I shall be glad to get a statement of the exact situation at the present time; I am sorry I have not got it in the information that has been supplied to me this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly will not delay the item. But since there is general interest in the matter, perhaps the Prime Minister will consider having a statement made along the lines of my question and table it some day as a sessional paper.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall be glad to do so, and have the federal district commission prepare a statement and the amounts. At the earliest possible occasion I will lay it on the table of the house.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Perhaps the Prime Minister will note particularly the developments around Sussex street with respect to the two bridges and also the razing of the old statistics building in the near future.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have a note which has just been sent to me and which should have reached me earlier. It will enable me to dispose of the former question at once. It is from Mr. Cram and reads as follows:
It occurred to me that it might be well to insert in the estimates book of the Prime Minister an item of the expenditure made to date from the national capital fund.
Including the fiscal year 1951-52 four instalments of $2,500,000 each have been appropriated by parliament to the national capital fund.
Of this $10 million the following expenditure has
been made to date:
1.	Acquisition of property	 $1,158,600
2.	Mackenzie King bridge construction 1,264,700
3.	Construction of railway cut-off line
in south Ottawa	 413,700


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
Prime Minister remind me of what I should not have to ask? How long do these instalments go on-indefinitely? I refer to the annual contribution of $2,500,000.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: It has to be renewed every year. The statement that was made when the first appropriation was recommended to parliament was that it might be advisable during each year for ten years to recommend to parliament the appropriation of an equal amount and this is the fifth time the government has brought the annual recommendation to parliament.
There is no commitment by parliament with respect to future appropriations, but the original general intention was, and it is still the intention, to recommend each year during the period of ten years this grant of $2,500,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: These are substantial amounts that have been spent and I should like to know whether the expenditures are made by the relevant departments, the Department of Public Works for example, or is it done entirely by the planning commission itself?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that for the construction of this bridge the federal district 'commission enlisted the services of the Department of Public Works and it was that department that finally certified the plans and specifications and tenders for the implementation of those plans were called for by that department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it from that that the national planning commission does not maintain a separate staff and there is no duplication of any kind.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They do not maintain a capital construction staff; they maintain a maintenance staff to take care of the properties entrusted to them.


William Joseph Browne: Can the
Prime Minister tell us whether the planning commission or the district commission intends to embark upon any major undertakings in the near future? It seems to me that this money is piling up. I understand the principal project they have in mind is the removal of the railroad tracks and the railroad station to some distance outside the centre of the city.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has already been expended from the capital planning fund on that project a total of $413,700 for the railroad cut-off in south Ottawa. That is the first step in the carrying out of the project to remove heavy traffic trackage from the centre of the city. I think the intention is to co-

operate with the government and other public authorities in timing the public works that the commission will undertake. They do not want to place a heavier drain on materials and manpower than the Department of Public Works feels would be proper in connection with the things under its control, nor do they want to go beyond what we recommend to provincial governments and municipalities in the way of a co-operative effort to discourage inflation.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: This question may not be altogether germane to this particular item, but it would seem to me that the federal district commission is not receiving sufficient money each year to carry out its current duties. Apparently it is spending more than $300,000 a year and I was wondering if consideration has been given to that fact.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Up to the present time the fund to which this $300,000 a year is contributed has not been exhausted; it is still in the black, to use a common expression. It is quite true that in the last couple of years more has been taken out than has gone in by way of annual appropriation and no doubt consideration will have to be given to keeping the account in a fluid condition. It has not yet been found by the commission or by the Auditor General that there is any urgency, but the matter is under consideration and the government will not hesitate to take the responsibility of recommending an increase when the commission and the Auditor General feel that an increase is required to keep the account in balance.



GOVERNOR GENERAL AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS

[Stage Direction]
169. Office of the secretary to the governor general, including the salary of the secretary to the governor general at $7,600 additional to salary authorized by chap. 182, R.S. 1927, $120,224.
Stanley Howard Knowles: What progress is being made with a matter that comes under this item concerning which the Prime Minister and I have had discussions on previous occasions? This is another of those items referred to by the Auditor General where a salary is paid in part by virtue of the provisions of a statute and in part by an item in the estimates. At the moment I forget the amount set out in the statute.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Here then is a case where the statute says that the salary is to be $2,400 a year but the incumbent receives $10,000 a year by virtue of this supplementary amount of $7,600 in the estimates. I think it is fair for me to say that the Prime Minister
Supply-Privy Council has expressed on previous occasions agreement with the suggestion that matters of this kind should be tidied up. What progress is being made in the tidying-up process?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I inquired if it would not be possible to make the proper permanent amendments to deal with the governor general's establishment. Certain changes have been made in the establishment which are still on an experimental basis. It was felt that we were not in a position this year to do what would be considered sufficient as an amendment of a permanent character. More than this one item would have to be taken care of, and we were not in a position to say that the matter had had sufficient consideration for us to assure parliament that that would be the permanent situation. In view of the change in the incumbent of this high office of governor general it was felt that we would just carry on under the system that prevails without attempting to make an amendment that would probably have to be completed at another session by further amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
no. To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for expense allowances to the lieutenant governors of the provinces for travelling and hospitality undertaken in the exercise of their duties, ?86,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not intend to debate this item at length, but I do wish to repeat the opposition to it which we of this group expressed when the same proposal was first made earlier this session in the form of a supplementary estimate. That supplementary estimate provided for the institution of these special expense allowances to lieutenant governors for travelling and hospitality. The reason it was provided by way of a supplementary estimate was to permit the practice being made effective as from January 1 of this year.
We opposed that supplementary estimate and our further thought on this matter leads us to feel that we should still oppose a grant of this kind. We feel that if a case can be made for adjusting the salaries of the gentlemen who occupy these posts of lieutenant governor, then that adjustment should be made by statute in the salary itself.
We dislike the idea of the sliding scale that is involved in this matter. By the way, that reminds me that the Minister of Finance answered a question of mine when we were on the supplementary estimates as to why the wording was different in the supplementary estimates from the main estimates. He indicated that an amendment would be made at this time. I take it that amendment will be

Supply-Privy Council forthcoming and that it will set out the sliding scale formula. It seems to me that is unrealistic. I feel that to put these gentlemen in the position of having to turn in statements as to what they have spent on travelling and entertainment is hardly compatible with the nature of their positions. As I recall it, the Prime Minister said they were not going to be asked to submit definite vouchers covering every item of expense but rather that they would be asked to submit their own statements that they had spent whatever amounts were claimed. We feel it is wrong in principle to make a provision of this kind. We say again that if it is felt necessary to make any salary adjustments- not that we think any increase is necessary- it should be done by an adjustment in the salary itself rather than in this way. For these reasons we are opposed to item 170.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To carry out the undertaking given by the Minister of Finance when the question arose on the supplementary estimates, I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to move that the language of the vote, without affecting the amount, be changed to read as follows:
To authorize and provide for the reimbursement to the lieutenant governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality-incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as follows:
(a)	where the population of the province at the last decennial census did not exceed 500,000, $5,000;
(b)	where the population of the province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $5,000 plus $1,000 per each 100,000 or fraction of 100,000 of population over 500,000, but not exceeding $12,000 in any case...


Alphonse Fournier: I so move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It sounds like a new formula for redistribution.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is a new formula for the distribution of an amount not exceeding $86,000 to provide for the reimbursement of expenditures that the lieutenant governors feel they must incur to discharge properly the responsibilities of the offices to which they have been appointed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to say a word about this item. We have certain questionings about it. There are one or two questions I should like to ask. I take it that the expenses of the lieutenant governors last autumn when the royal party was here were in fact paid either by themselves or by the various provinces.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
whether this action is being taken on the initiative of the government itself simply as a thing which it seemed reasonable to do


or if in fact the matter was put forward by the provinces. It is hard for me to believe, for example, that the province of Ontario should not, could not and would not look after an expenditure of that kind. I wonder if we might be told a little more about the background, although the amount involved is quite trifling compared with some of the amounts we pass.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It has been brought
forward on the initiative of the government itself. Since I have been a member of the government considerable difficulty has been experienced on various occasions in securing gentlemen looked upon as of the right standing in their respective communities to assume the responsibilities of the office. It was pointed out to us by a number who have not become lieutenant governors that they could not afford to do it because they would have to spend very much more than what would be left of the salary fixed by statute after paying income tax. There was one suggestion that they should not be subject to income tax.
It was felt that as long as the requirements of the country were such that there had to be a very wide base for income tax, then exemptions from income tax were not the right thing to recommend. When you start making exemptions for one it leads to another. The officials of the Department of Finance and the minister felt it would be creating embarrassment for future ministers of finance to commence the process of exempting individuals from income tax. However, it is recognized that there are certain expenses that are necessarily incurred to receive the income, and recognition that certain expenses are incurred as a condition of getting the income that is taxed is being extended almost from session to session. The only way in which it was felt it could be done in this case was to recognize that there were such expenditures.
I have no doubt that the lieutenant governor of Ontario is going to expend considerably more than this amount but it was felt that here was something that was comparable to allowances made to ministers or ambassadors abroad, and that an amount of this kind would make it somewhat easier to secure the acceptance of gentlemen who might be approached in the future with the offer to occupy this very dignified and honourable office. I was told in one case, and it was not in Ontario or Quebec, that it meant an annual expenditure of not less than $40,000 out of the personal income of the incumbent to discharge properly the responsibilities of the office of lieutenant governor in the manner to which the people of his

Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
province had become accustomed. I felt they had perhaps become accustomed to more than was really necessary but that nevertheless there was a certain amount that was inevitably required to do the things that we frequently ask lieutenant governors to do.
We frequently communicate with them and ask them to take some part in the entertainment of distinguished guests who are visiting our country. Constitutionally the responsibility for the appointment and emoluments of lieutenant governors is a responsibility of the central government. It was felt that if there was a certain amount against which they could say they had made the kind of expenditures that are described in this language as proper expenditures in the discharge of the functions of their office in a dignified way it would be proper to reimburse them not in the form of income but for necessary expenses that they had incurred.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall item 170 as amended carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Item as amended agreed to on division.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
422. General administration, $367,953.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, unless the
minister wishes to make an opening statement, I shall proceed to ask some questions, the first of which concerns the manner of payment of the salaries of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think perhaps it would be better to have this discussion under the general item.
It was represented to me that many members of the force, if not all, receive their salaries monthly rather than bi-monthly, and that this imposed upon them considerable financial difficulty in that they do not have enough at one time to meet household expenses as they become due. On the other hand, if they have household expenses at the end of the month, then before receiving the monthly cheque at the end of the following month they experience some financial embarrassment.
I understand representations have been made asking that they be placed on a basis whereby they would be paid twice a month, but that so far nothing has come of it. Is the minister able to say whether this matter is receiving attention? I hope he will tell us that it will be changed so that members of the force may receive their cheques twice monthly.


Hon. Sluari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Chairman, it is a fact, as my hon. friend
has said, that the members of the force are paid once each month. I must say however that I have received no representations from anyone to the effect that this method has not been acceptable to members of the force. I have asked the commissioner, who is now sitting in front of me, and he says he has received no representations. So, as the hon. member's remarks are the first representations made to us, we shall be glad to look into the matter, to see if they have some foundation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the minister has said that, because I was under the impression that representations had been made in writing. My information was on the basis of personal conversation, so I am not in a position to offer substantiation. If the minister will look into the matter, I shall be grateful.


Mr. Blackmore:: What provision is the minister making to see to it that the incomes of mounted police are kept in line with the increased cost of living? Have adjustments been made in their incomes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Provision was made in December of last year whereby an increase was granted to the salaries of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at about the same time and, so far as the two bodies are comparable, on the same basis as was awarded to members of the civil service.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there a general feeling among the mounted police that they are being adequately paid to meet the expenses they have to incur?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Subject to the feeling all of us have, that we would like to have our incomes somewhat larger than they are, I think there is a general feeling in the force that they have been treated fairly, in comparison with, let us say, the civil service or other bodies with whom they would be comparable. I am sure they would agree, however-as indeed I would myself-that their incomes could be larger than they are. I might say the same about mine, too.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us suppose a member of the force is transferred from one place to another, and upon doing so finds it impossible to obtain living quarters at the rate he had been paying before the transfer. Is there any follow-up item by officials to see that such a situation does not become serious?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: While I cannot say that all such cases are taken care of, for some years past it has been our practice to increase the number of buildings, residences and the like available for members of the force in the different cities in which detachments are placed. We add to that number as finances
2670	HOUSE OF
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police and materials permit. In respect of some officers we rent premises, and make them available.


John Horne Blackmore: What provision is made to cover additional expenses incidental to the arrival of another member of the family? This is a serious matter for married people. Is there any provision for additional expense incurred upon the birth of a child?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if I may be permitted to restate my hon. friend's question so that I shall be sure to have it right. Does he refer to the mere addition to the family of a member of the force, or is he referring to the additional cost of moving from one detachment to another arising through the having of a larger family?
I understand we do not defray the cost in connection with an addition to the family of a member of the force. But, inasmuch as we pay the moving expenses in. the event of a man's being moved from one detachment to another, naturally these would include the expenses of all members of his family. And of course if he has had an addition to his family, we would pay the moving expenses if any of that additional member.


John Horne Blackmore: The impression is abroad everywhere that we pay our mounted police meagrely, and that they are kept pretty well on a subsistence basis. If additional expense is incurred through an incident such as that I have indicated, or through sickness in a family which would cause a burden of debt to be developed, is some provision made for cushioning any such conditions which may develop, and which would affect the head of the household?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In common with all other Canadians, members of the force receive family allowances. When there is an addition to the family there is automatically qualification for a greater family allowance, for that addition. Their moving expenses are paid when they transfer from one detachment to another-and that is more than some Canadians receive when they are moved from one place of business to another. Then, during the last two years the members of the force have received two separate and fairly substantial increases in their pay. In each case the effort was made to keep the members of the force on a basis comparable with members of the civil service, and in a manner which would be fair to the civil service on one hand and the members of the force on the other. When all these factors are taken into consideration I think we can claim that the members of the force have been fairly treated in respect of the matters to which the hon. member has referred.


William Joseph Browne: In the details at page 472 the revenue is set out. Is that revenue received from the provinces by way of payment for work done by the mounted police in those provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is referring to the $2,658,155 on that page?


William Joseph Browne: That is the amount for 1950-51.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is made up almost entirely of payments received from provincial and municipal governments in eight of the provinces for police services supplied by the R.C.M.P. under contracts with those provinces and municipalities.


William Joseph Browne: Does that money go into the consolidated revenue fund?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
423. Operation and maintenance, $25,210,272.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Under this item, Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable increase in the number of personnel on the administrative side-I do not mean the members of the force itself- from 588 to 790. Would the minister say what has been the main cause of that increase?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The reply is that the major portion of the increase is accounted for by the naturally heavy increase in security work which is being done by the mounted police consequent upon the condition of cold war in which we are at the present time. This security work, as I am sure the hon. member will realize when he reflects upon it, involves a lot of desk and paper work. In addition to that, we have tried to get civilian employees into all positions in the force in which they could discharge the duties of the office, in order to release as many of the force as possible for active police work.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no similar figure given for the actual number of men, non-commissioned officers and officers in the force itself. There is an item here for the pay of the members of the force, but can the minister say what is the present total of the personnel of the force as compared with last year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I have the figures here. As at May 24, 1952 the force in regular uniform totalled 4,213; special constables, 371; civilian employees, 340; civil servants, 780; total, 5,704.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister said 340 civil servants are included? What are those w*ho are represented by this 340? Are they doing police work or office work or administrative work?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They are doing not only office but maintenance work as well, not police work.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are they the ones the minister referred to as special constables-I believe that phrase was used.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The special constables do special police work of various kinds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are they in uniform?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, they are not. Just to avoid any misunderstanding on that score, what is referred to as the special branch of the force, which is engaged in security work, would take in uniformed men, special constables, civilian employees and civil servants, so it cuts right across those four categories. As I have said, the special constables do special police work of various kinds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I might say that from what small experience I have had with them I have been favourably impressed. It has always seemed to me they were considerate. At the same time I should like to know, because it is of such great importance, what the minister can say to us regarding the selection and training of these men. After all, if I understand their duty correctly, they have that extremely difficult task of considering andi making up their minds as to the loyalty of Canadian citizens, and they have the responsibility of actually reporting against people.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps I can indicate the degree of care which is exercised in the selection of members of the special force, if I indicate that in the choice of the members of the regular force we ordinarily accept about one-twelfth of those who offer themselves as recruits. There is a very high standard of qualification.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are
speaking now of the uniformed men, the 4,000?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, of the force generally. With regard to the members of the special branch, we have a higher standard than even the high standard which prevails with regard to the force itself. In the special branch there will be quite a number of university graduates, and there will be also a large number of men whose capacity had been proven through years of experience in the main force. When these men indicate by the manner in which they carry out their duties in the main force that they have special fitness for work in this special branch, they are transferred in order that we might avail ourselves of their special qualities.
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say how many of the specials come out of the main force? What percentage of the special branch comes from the regular force?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Between one-half and three fifths; that would be between 50 and 60 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has indicated that a large number of the special force are university men. Could he say what percentage of the main force are of that background, university men?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: A relatively small percentage; I would say less than 10 per cent of the main force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the minister can say a word with reference to the security work done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the work carried on by the civil service itself. I have been quite concerned about this when hearing recently of the security check which is made of civilian employees, for instance, in the Department of National Defence. Then we find the Department of Defence Production has certain security forms which must be filled in before people are employed. The minister has made reference to the security work done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Can he say a word to indicate the co-operation between at least these three branches of the government service which are carrying on security checks, to reassure us that overlapping is being avoided in so far as that is possible?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid my knowledge of the details of the administration of these other departments to which the hon. member refers is not sufficient for me to state at all authoritatively what their security precautions are. Nevertheless I think I can explain quite accurately the relationship between these other departments and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The other departments of government, depending on how vulnerable they may consider themselves to be in the matter of security, ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a report upon any employee concerning whose loyalty they entertain doubt. This report is prepared by men in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are specially detailed for that purpose. After that report has been prepared it is sent to the deputy minister of the department concerned. I should like to emphasize the point that in no case does it contain any recommendation by the mounted police to the effect that the subject of the report should be either dismissed or retained. The report is entirely factual. When it is received by the deputy minister
2672	HOUSE OF
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police of that other department, the responsibility for reaching a judgment upon the basis of that report and such other material as the deputy minister may have, to the end that he may retain the employee, dismiss him or take whatever other action he may wish to take, is the responsibility of that deputy minister. As far as the mounted police are concerned, their duty is confined in this context to the supplying of factual reports concerning employees of other departments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister say whether the screening-to use the general word which is used-which is done in other departments is always done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at their request, or whether these other departments also carry on their own screening? For instance, who does the screening for the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know my hon. friend does not intend this as a trick question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Having regard to the facilities we can provide in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for work of this character and the probable absence of equal facilities elsewhere in the government service, I believe we are the only ones who provide reports of that kind. As my hon. friend will be the first to agree, I cannot say positively that any other department does not get reports from other sources, but I do not think they do and I do not see any reason why they should. I think we can give reports that are better than any that can be procured from any other source. So far as I know we are the only department of the public service that is asked to produce factual reports of that kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are two other questions I should like to ask. One has reference to newspaper reports I have seen which indicate that the musical ride is being revived. Is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I think the opportunity should be taken to tell the minister, and to let it be known to the commissioner as well, that I for one-and I think I speak generally for most people-feel that is an excellent move and that they are to be congratulated upon that decision.
The other question I should like to ask relates to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police band. Is that band to be sent over to take part in the coronation ceremonies in England?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I want to express my appreciation, on behalf of the force, for my hon.


friend's congratulations concerning the musical ride. I am hardly in a position to agree with him, under the circumstances; but if I may do so without immodesty, I may say that I certainly agree with him. As to the band, as yet no decision has been reached.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it a decision to be made on our own part or is the situation perhaps, if I can put it that way, that an invitation to go over is not yet firm?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will permit me to say so, I think the situation is probably that the point of discussing this particular topic by any government has not yet been reached.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, but I did not quite follow what the minister said,


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I say I think it is a case where the point in time has not yet been reached when this matter is under consideration or discussion by any government at all. We read in the newspapers about the coronation; and that the tentative, probable or speculative date is some time, presumably, in June, 1953.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is fixed as June 2 or 3.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: June 2 or 3 in 1953. But I do
not think the arrangements have reached the point where we could as yet say that the mounted police band would be going to the coronation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the fact that the matter must be in a fluid state at the moment. I would say, however, that I am sure the people of this country would agree that anything along this line, within reason, which would increase Canada's participation in these coronation ceremonies would be desirable and that it would receive the approval of the country. As far as we are concerned, I can assure the minister that if it should be found possible, we would hope that the band might be sent over.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We entirely agree with my hon. friend.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister say
whether the mounted police force is up to the full desirable strength at the present time or whether there are deficiencies?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the term that is used is "authorized strength". At the present time the force falls short of the authorized strength in each of those four categories I named previously.


Mr. Shaw:: It is my understanding that within the past year or two certain reorganization has taken place within the force itself. For example, I understand that the rank of

subinspector has been abolished. Just how far has this reorganization gone and what ranks have been affected?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Some reorganization has taken place but the rank of subinspector, to which my hon. friend has referred as having been abolished, has been retained.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I may, I should like to ask a question which really covers items 422 to 429. I observe that there are three items as to operation and maintenance, one for land services', one for marine services and the other for aviation services, the amount of the item for land services being $25 million, roughly; the naval item being $1,200,000 and the item for air being $281,000. Does that separation into three items indicate a separation in organization? Does it mean that there are three separate units or is this merely an accounting figure? Will the minister say a word as to the organization of the three separate units and as to the degree of separateness or otherwise?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The facts are that the air service is a separate division, that the marine service is a separate division and the land services are separate divisions. Each does work peculiar to itself. For example, the marine service has revenue cutters to prevent smuggling and the like. But although for obvious administrative reasons they are set up separately, they all work together in the force. My hon. friend's second observation, that it is partly for accounting purposes that they are set up in this way, is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just to pursue that one step further, I take it there will be a chief inspector and his other staff would deal with all three, and that it would only be on the lower level that the separation would come into effect. First of all, to what extent are they physically separated? I presume the naval people live on the sea-coast.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, as I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate, it is impossible to have an air service, however small, without having some administrative officers that look after the air service as such. The same thing is true of the marine service. You must have men who 'are specially trained in running ships to operate that service. But the headquarters staff, including not only the highest officers, but most of the high officers are over and command all these *services. In other words, the division between these services is not one that goes right to the top by any means. I should say as a layman that the services are subordinate and auxiliary to the police function of the whole force.
55704-169J
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That makes it clear in a general way. Let us take the marine service. Would there be a commanding officer? Would there be a naval headquarters on the east coast and on the west coast, with officers dealing on their own responsibility with things there, or would everything be controlled in Ottawa?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. For example, on the east coast they have an officer in charge who has technical control of these marine operations; but as I was indicating a few moments ago, the highest rank that is in charge of any one of these is superintendent. The other higher ranks come over him. The marine service is not a big empire in itself. It is subsidiary and auxiliary to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police itself, i


John Horne Blackmore: Just before the item carries, I am concerned about the fact that the force is not up to the desired strength. What steps is the minister taking to adjust that matter? It seems to me in times like these the force should be better than a little over normal strength.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I referred a few moments ago to the increases in salaries we had authorized, two separate increases of quite substantial proportions in the last two years. These increases in pay, coupled with a pretty active recruiting campaign, have resulted, for example, in an increase in the uniformed force from 3,650 in 1951 to 4,213 in 1952. That curve of increased enlistment is still continuing, and we have therefore every hope that within a period of time we shall be up to our authorized strength. As a matter of fact, at the present time, the whole Royal Canadian Mounted Police is only 8 per cent below authorized strength.


John Horne Blackmore: To what extent do the provincial governments rely upon the mounted police to do their policing? What supplementary provincial forces are there in the provinces? Can the minister tell us that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. I might reply to my hon. friend's questions in these terms. In eight of the provinces of Canada, that is, in all the provinces except Ontario and Quebec, the entire provincial responsibility for policing is carried out under contract by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In every one of those eight provinces there is just one police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which does all the federal work, for the federal government directly, and which under contract does all the law enforcement and administration of justice which is the constitutional responsibility of the provincial authorities.
2674	HOUSE OF
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
In addition to that we do the work for a number of municipalities in the different provinces. In Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia 3; in New Brunswick, 8; in Manitoba, 18; in Saskatchewan, 27; in Alberta, 21; in British Columbia, 45, or a total of 123 municipalities, involving 451 members of the force, also under contract, for which substantial payments are made. These are the moneys the hon. member for St. John's West referred to as having come into the consolidated revenue fund from the provinces and the municipalities.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the municipality itself enter into a contract, or does it do that through the province?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Each contract is with each municipality separately. It is in most cases between the municipality represented as a rule by the mayor and secretary-treasurer, the province represented by the attorney general of the province, and myself representing the federal government. Each municipality has a contract which it renews periodically under which we look after the policing of that municipality.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Was it necessary to employ more personnel owing to the fact that we have been confronted with an increased amount of smuggling in the last year or two? Was it necessary to employ any more personnel, or was it taken care of by the staff already appointed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it was not necessary to increase the personnel for the purpose to which the hon. gentleman has referred. What we did was to concentrate our anti-smuggling personnel in the force at various vulnerable points along the border at which there seemed to be a concentration of smuggling. In that way we were able to handle it without incurring any additional expense for personnel.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the basis of co-operation between Ontario and the federal government in respect to policing? Does Ontario have some assistance from Ottawa?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I am quite correct in saying that the most harmonious relationships exist between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial forces of both Ontario and Quebec. They are mutually helpful at all times, but Ontario has its own police force and looks after all its own policing responsibility itself. So has Quebec. Other than this mutual help there is no connection between the two forces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just to follow up the question asked by the hon. member immediately to my left about the smuggling, we have seen statements in the press from time to time that the volume is so extensive with respect to
[Mr. Garson.1

cigarettes that presumably-I think I have seen this statement-only a relatively small percentage can possibly be caught. Is that correct or does the department or the force feel that it has the necessary personnel and resources to deal with and trace down at least the large proportion of the present volume of cigarette smuggling?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is a rather embarrassing question in the sense that it is hard for any force, no matter how competent it is, to make a positive statement that it has apprehended all smugglers, or a certain percentage of them. I think on the whole, measured in terms of seizures, prosecutions and the like, the force not only feels it has been quite successful in its anti-smuggling operations but has substantial grounds for so feeling.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister going so far as to say he feels that the resources of the force are sufficient to enable them to deal with, perhaps I should say, well over half the actual volume of smuggling, or does he and the force feel that to deal with that percentage they would have to have considerably more resources?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the answer to my hon. friend's question is to be found in the statement I made a few moments ago, that we were able to deal with this smuggling with our existing personnel by concentrating at the points at which most of the smuggling was taking place. I am quite sure that if the high officers of the force had felt they needed more personnel for that purpose they would not have hesitated to detail them. If I may draw a parallel, when dealing with a heavy increase in its work the special branch did not hesitate at all to add substantially to its membership. Where the work was to be done they did not hesitate to increase their personnel. In dealing with this smuggling the force felt that their trained men properly distributed among the most vulnerable places could cope with the situation as well as any force could cope with it. There never was a police force in history that eliminated all crime. The most that any force can do is deal with an optimum percentage of crime. I think the percentage in this case has been gratifying to the force and that they have substantial grounds for their gratification.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In order that we may have a background for this discussion, has the minister available, first, the number of cases in which smugglers were apprehended during the fiscal year 1951-52 as compared with 1950-51 and, second, the total number of

cigarettes which were seized in the last fiscal year as compared with the preceding fiscal year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The commissioner tells me that the crime statistics for the past fiscal year are just being completed. For obvious reasons we have not made a practice of publishing the statistics or boasting about our accomplishments but I would be glad to see that this comparison is made available to my hon. friend as soon as we get the figures.


John Horne Blackmore: Who would be responsible for dealing with smuggling over the boundary between Ontario and the United States? Would that responsibility rest upon the mounted police or the Ontario police?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend, knows, the Customs Act was passed by this parliament and therefore the prevention of smuggling is the responsibility of the federal police force. In provinces like Ontario and Quebec where they have provincial forces and a federal police force as well, the prevention of smuggling falls squarely upon the federal police force.


John Horne Blackmore: Are there any other
branches of police work which are specifically a federal responsibility?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Another one would be
narcotics.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to come back to this cigarette business. Now that the Minister of Finance is here perhaps he can give us some expert evidence on this matter. The minister said they were able to deal with this smuggling with the existing personnel. I do not want to fall into the error of accepting every rumour as though it was an authenticated fact, but there is a widespread belief, which I have never heard seriously questioned, that the smuggling of cigarettes was not on a retail basis, that it was on a completely wholesale plan. After discounting the stories one hears as to the ease with which smuggled cigarettes can be bought, the plight of the tobacco industry would seem to give a good deal of support to those stories. If I remember correctly, the minister said that if the force had felt they needed extra help they would have asked for it. I want to know whether in fact the force did state that they were satisfied with the situation. If they did, it would surprise and disturb me. I should like to know whether in fact they were asked and whether they did not say, "Well, we did the best we could with the men we had, but that is not to say we dealt with the problem." It may be very comforting to us to know that they
28, 1952	2675
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police did the best they could with the forces they had, but what I want to know is whether they felt that the problem was being dealt with. It is not only a question of money, it is a question of the observance of law. We know that once you begin to disregard one law it is easy to go on to another.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The commissioner has just handed me some preliminary figures which have just been taken off and which I think will illuminate this subject to some extent. The increases in cases in 1952 as compared with 1951 are of this order:	Under federal
statutes, which would include anti-smuggling, customs work and so on, 42-5 per cent-I am quite sure the hon. member for Greenwood will regard that as quite a substantial increase-Criminal Code cases 37 per cent; provincial and municipal cases, 46-8 per cent; an over-all increase of 42-9 per cent.
My hon. friend says he is disturbed over newspaper reports he has read, and because of the plight of the tobacco industry. That leads me to the conclusion-perhaps this is just an inference I am drawing, and if I am wrong I hope he will correct me-that it is his private opinion that the force should have made available a larger number of personnel for anti-smuggling work. I respect his opinion. But in a matter of this kind I naturally respect perhaps somewhat more the opinion of professional people engaged in police work.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I may
interrupt, I think in a way that is a fair inference, but the minister does not need to infer because I asked a definite question whether in fact the force was satisfied and whether they had asked for any further assistance.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was just coming to that. As I say, I would respect perhaps even more the views of professional men in police administration. I said before, and I repeat, no requests were made by the force for additional personnel for anti-smuggling work because it was thought, as I am informed, that the existing staff of highly trained men, if concentrated at the points at which most of the smuggling was taking place, would achieve what I might call an optimum law enforcement. It is impossible to get 100 per cent anti-smuggling enforcement. As a matter of fact no person knows what percentage the force does get because you do not know how many get through. Men who have been professionally engaged in this type of work for a long period of years can form what at best is only a professional opinion that they can get the optimum result by a certain method. In the present case it was their
2676	HOUSE OF
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police view they could get that optimum result by concentrating their existing personnel, who would be trained and able people, and not by taking on people who were green at that particular type of work. That is what they did.
Maybe, as my hon. friend rather hints, that was a wrong decision. I myself would think it was a sound decision, and I would not be deterred from that view by any of the newspaper items upon this subject. We have placed in the hands of the two hon. members on the official opposition side of the house who have taken part in this debate the figures as to what was done in the way of seizures and so on. These figures show an over-all increase of 42-9 per cent. That is a very large percentage increase to take place in one year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: These very figures seem to me to raise a serious question. If I understand the figures correctly, they show that the increase in cases in 1952 over 1951 with respect to federal statutes-and the minister said that was chiefly smuggling- was 42 per cent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He said that the increase in Criminal Code cases was 37 per cent, and in provincial and municipal cases 46 per cent. If I read the figures aright, instead of finding there is a tremendous preponderance in the cases connected with smuggling, actually the increase there is not as big as in provincial and municipal cases. That would seem to me to cast doubt. I take it nobody doubts that there was any amount of material to work on there, yet the percentage is not as high.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I submit with great respect that the conclusions which my hon. friend is trying to draw from these figures are invalid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a simple seeker after truth.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I am myself; but I do not think by that conclusion my hon. friend is catching up with it. I suggest that when you consider the great variety of traffic offences, government liquor control offences and all the other provincial and municipal offences, you cannot draw a comparison between those and these federal offences. The significant thing, however, is that the real comparison here is between federal offences which took place in 1951 and federal offences which took place in 1952. The federal offences with which the mounted police have to do are limited in number. They are mainly in the field of customs work and narcotics. Where you have


an increase in one year of 42-8 per cent, approaching 50 per cent, in federal offences, I would say it indicates a very high degree of stepping up of activity.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would be impressed if it were not for these other figures and the fact that it is not going to be as high as in these other cases where there is no special reason to believe there was an additional amount of crime.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest, as I have already suggested, that no conclusions can validly be drawn from a comparison of the increase in provincial and municipal offences on the one hand and the increase in federal offences on the other hand. Taking a rather absurd example, let us suppose that some of the municipalities for which we are acting take it into their heads to overhaul their traffic bylaws and are determined to prevent jaywalking and all kinds of traffic or parking offences. This could produce a great bulge in your statistics of municipal offences which would have no significance whatever for the purpose for which my hon. friend is trying to use it. Perhaps it would have been more judicious on my part if I had not stated the Criminal Code offences and the provincial and municipal offences at all, and had simply directed my hon. friend's attention to the increase in federal offences, because that is really what we are talking about.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I appreciate the fact that the minister gave me the facts, although I would expect the Minister of Justice to always do that. However, I still find one argument he has made very unconvincing. He says there are all kinds of crimes that arise under municipal statutes, and no doubt there are; but he has not suggested, and I doubt if he can suggest, that there was any special event which happened which would tend to increase greatly the amount of crime in that category. At any rate, there was nothing comparable to what everyone I have talked to believes has been going on along the frontier in the matter of the smuggling of tobacco. Surely the minister will not tell me that was not an outstanding case of evasion of law; yet we have only a 42 per cent increase. I am sorry that the Minister of Public Works feels so badly.


Alphonse Fournier: Excuse me. I always enjoy listening to the hon. member.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: 
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid this is a field in which a mere lawyer, with all the talents that my hon. friend has ascribed to him, is not competent to express an opinion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land services-
424. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000. $4,298,491.
Mr. Dinsdale:: Did I understand the minister to say that it is the policy of the department to obtain permanent quarters for detachments as soon as possible when circumstances warrant?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. What I said was that it is our policy to obtain quarters of that character as finances and materials permit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the details in the estimates it appears that while last year authority was given for the expenditure of $4,061,199, the total expenditures to the end of the year amounted to only $2,015,000. In other words, not quite half the actual estimate was spent during the fiscal year. Why? Is there any reason to suppose the experience would be different this time? Is it not possible to reduce this item from the amount of $4,298,491 now asked?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From the standpoint of the minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I would say we are anxious to have authority to build all the buildings we need, and that we desire to have them built if at all possible. It turns out that in some cases we are not able to have the work completed within a fiscal year and the grant has to lapse. I am sure, however, that upon reflection hon. members would agree that under those circumstances it is desirable to have the original authorization cover all that we wish to build, rather than less than we wish to build.


Mr. Ferguson:: From the viewpoint of the Canadian citizen and our understanding of what the R.C.M.P. means to Canada, particularly in these days, no stone should be left unturned to give these men the best possible facilities by way of buildings so they can operate along the lines on which the people of Canada believe they should operate. Anything the government can do to lessen any handicaps in their work, which is so vital in these days, would be acceptable. It is necessary that the government should not spare dollars in doing everything possible to make the R.C.M.P. as efficient as it can be made.
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the hon. member has put into words what I have felt, but what perhaps I did not make clear when I spoke before. However, my question related to the experience of the last year and the anticipated experience this year. I wish to know whether there is any reason why we should be asked to authorize an estimate of $4,298,491. Have we any reason to suppose that the department will be able to spend that much this year, when last year they were able to spend in the fiscal year less than half the amount they sought? I appreciate the minister's desire to have authority to build those buildings considered necessary, but I want to know what basis there is for the assumption that the amount set out in the estimate this year will be spent, in the light of last year's experience.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is addressing his question to the minister in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That minister has asked for the full amount now appearing in the estimates, and that is the amount he wants to have spent. So far as this department is concerned we will do everything we can to see that it is spent. If it is not spent it will not be our fault, because these buildings are badly needed.
I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North when he says that we should provide the best possible facilities for the force.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister says these expenditures are necessary. Surely the people of Canada want to have them made. No other minister should be able to hold up those expenditures, if the minister in charge of the mounted police thinks they are necessary. Is the minister in another department going to deprive the mounted police of the facilities that the Minister of Justice believes are necessary?
The minister is asking us to vote this amount of money. We want to know that the money will be spent, because the minister has said that the expenditures are absolutely necessary. I am sure my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops is concerned as to whether it will be spent. The minister says, "This is the amount we want", but he does not seem very sure that this is the amount which will be spent. This is the point made by the hon. member for Kamloops. It is a logical point, in which he asks that the minister in charge of the department should see that the money is spent when it is obtained, so the buildings may be erected. Surely the minister knows whether any other minister can stop the furnishing of that which he believes to be necessary.
2678	HOUSE OF
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sure we are all greatly impressed by the desire of the Minister of Justice to spend money as fast as he can.


Alphonse Fournier: That is not fair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He said he was anxious to spend it and I am giving him credit for it. But we want to know what expectation the minister has of getting the work done. We are all agreed it should be done. Last year for reasons which we have not yet been told, but which no doubt are valid, the amount was not spent. What we are asking is whether the Minister of Justice or his colleague the Minister of Public Works, who seems so restless at the moment, can give us some idea as to what work is going to be done. We do not want money spent just for the sake of spending it; we want money spent for the sake of getting results. I am sorry three of us have had to make this point; but it is important.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think the conclusions my hon. friend draws from figures are always valid. I think the last conclusions he has drawn are invalid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not draw any conclusions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What is my hon. friend's reasoning? He looks at page 474 of the estimates and sees that out of an authorized expenditure of something more than $4 million last year there was an actual expenditure of a lesser amount.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just half.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He immediately jumps to the conclusion that the amount we wish to have authorized this year is not going to be spent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just asked a question; I did not jump to any conclusion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there is any reason, in logic, for that conclusion. I have already said everything it is possible for me to say, and that is that this estimate has been brought down seriously, that the facilities are needed. We are not anxious to spend money for the sake of spending money in the way the hon. member for Greenwood has indicated, but we are anxious to have badly needed buildings, and the fact that the provision of those buildings involves legitimate expenditures of money is incidental. But when the hon. member says he wants me to give the House of Commons an assurance that the money is surely going to be spent, then I say he is asking me to launch out into the realm of prophecy. The spending of it will depend upon actions of people who are outside the control of our department-contractors who


do the work, for example. It will depend upon whether they can get on with their work and complete it in time.
As to the suggestion that any other minister will stand in the way, I say there is no foundation for that at all. These estimates are brought down by the government. They are the government's estimates. They are serious estimates, and we are asking this committee to vote the money. We do not ask hon. members to vote estimates we do not intend to spend. But if, for example, some of the buildings are in northern locations where the frost comes early, and where there might be a freeze-up a month earlier than is normal, do hon. members expect the minister to underwrite that sort of thing by way of a prophecy, just in order to satisfy members of the opposition?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has said I am jumping to conclusions. I have not jumped to any conclusion. I asked him a simple and pertinent question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps the hon. member was asking me to jump to conclusions, and I did not wish to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has indicated that he was either unable or unwilling to spend more than half the amount which was actually appropriated in the estimates last year. Now, I said, what reason has the minister to suppose-this was my question and if he will think for a minute he will remember this was the way it was put-that this year he will be in a position to spend the total amount asked, because the amount asked this year is even more than he asked last year. That was the question I was seeking to have answered, and I do not think we have had it answered yet because the minister has not been able to give us any facts upon which an opinion can be based. Has the material situation improved, or have the contractors assured him they will be able to do the work this year? I shall ask the minister why it was not possible to spend this amount last year, and whether the situation which caused last year's position has changed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Having regard to the fact that it is not our department that spends this money, I could not oblige the hon. member with the reasons. May I say with great respect that I wonder if we are not labouring a rather obvious point. I have had to do with the preparation of government estimates for some fifteen years now; and with our climate in this country I do not know of any government which authorizes public works items like these that is able in every year to spend all that has been voted by parliament. They all try, as we are doing here, to appropriate

what they want to spend. If there is a shortfall, there is a shortfall. It is rather routine business in most governments.
In some cases the grant lapses, and it is just voted again another year, but in other cases it may not lapse. There is no human being who can prophesy, at the time we are voting these estimates, for example, the weather conditions under which they may have to be spent. No person knowing the way in which these estimates are brought up ever says that we should attempt to prophesy-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Yes, they do.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, they do not.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We are being asked here to vote a matter of $4 million. The minister who is the head of this department is no different from the head of a department in a private corporation, outside of the fact that he is spending the taxpayers' money. Apparently suggestions come to the ministers of this government, and when their estimates are being considered they walk in and ask for an amount of money. They try to put it through in spite of the endeavour of the opposition to find out what this money is for, and why the taxpayer is being called upon to cough up this amount of money to carry out the desire of somebody, not the minister. The minister is only the railroader of the grant.
Can you imagine the Steel Company of Canada making an addition to their plant at Hamilton, Ontario, and having the man in charge of production come before the board of directors requesting $2 million or $5 million and not being able to explain the purpose for which that money was to be used? We have just had an example of a minister talking about a total amount of $4 million and not being able to explain why $2 million, or about 50 per cent, was not spent. He says it was on account of climatic conditions. We have not heard from the minister that he has investigated this situation to such an extent that he could say that 50 per cent of the $4 million is going to be spent in Alaska or that it is not going to be spent in Alaska. He does not know where it is going to be spent. He has tried to indicate to us, the watchdogs of public funds, that climatic conditions or frost conditions prevented the expenditure. You would think that this country was snowbound from the United States border up to the north pole.
We are looking for an explanation as to why the money which was requested last year was not spent. We have not heard from the minister that it was because the Eskimos could not lay bricks. We have heard that you cannot tell about weather conditions. Just imagine such nonsense. Weather conditions
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police may make it impossible to spend 50 per cent of the money being collected from the taxpayers. If the minister knew anything about why he was asking for this money, we would be fair and decent about the situation. If he could say that 50 per cent of the money about which I am asking is going to be spent in a part of Canada where climatic conditions may not permit $1 being spent, we would say, "Certainly you cannot prophesy about conditions there." We know as well or even better than he does that certain contractors will not even tender in the tough sections of the country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I let you speak without interruption, and now you let me speak. You may ask me all the questions you like when I have finished, and I shall give you intelligent answers. Here is a man asking us to pass an item which is only $4 million, but which may form part of the $700 million surplus which this government is requesting. I am sure every hon. member in this house must be dumbfounded to find a minister requesting this amount of money who knows so little about the reasons for the request. The only argument advanced in favour of giving him this money carte blanche is that weather conditions may prevent the spending of it. He does not say it is for this or for that.
As I said before, we do not wish to handicap this important department in any way; give them all they need without any restraint whatever, but when the minister asks us to pass an item and only mentions weather conditions during the four times he has been on his feet, then it is time to ask for further explanations. I know that I live in a cold but pleasant country. From the way the minister speaks, you would believe we are snowbound twelve months a year from the United States border to the northern part of the Northwest Territories. My colleagues want to know if the minister has the slightest idea why this money is necessary, and why the money that was voted last year was not utilized. The only argument he has given us so far-I would defy him to refute my statement-is that you cannot tell about weather conditions. Never in my life have I heard such weak nonsense from any minister who was trying to obtain money from the already overburdened taxpayers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, after this
impassioned oration-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It may be, but I hope it sank in.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Don't take it too seriously.
2680	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is the trouble, you don't.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member says he wants the details of these expenditures. It did not require a twenty-minute speech for him to get the details.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It did, from three different members.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall now give him the details which I forbore giving before because I did not think it was necessary to take up the time of the house to go into details of this sort. I hope he will listen carefully; and if he knows anything about Canadian geography, he will know that weather conditions at some of these places might have a great deal to do with whether this work could be completed before the construction season runs out.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have been in every part of Canada, just as you have.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I admit that, and that is why the hon. member will understand this reference when I give it. I shall give the places where this construction will take place. The first is Fredericton, New Brunswick; there is no weather problem there.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is not snowbound, either.


Alphonse Fournier: No
one is trying to stop you from talking.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If you will listen for a minute you might learn something.


Alphonse Fournier: We
know how much you know.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Outside of Quebec, you don't know anything.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that interjections be reserved until we get this list on the record. The places are, Fredericton, New Brunswick; Long Island, Ontario; Rockcliffe, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; Moose Factory, Ontario; Port Harrison, Quebec;-my hon. friend knows where that is; that is quite far north-Norway House, Manitoba; Regina, Saskatchewan; Stony Rapids, Saskatchewan; Cumberland House, Saskatchewan; Beaverlodge, Alberta; Vancouver, British Columbia; Eskimo Point, Northwest Territories. Perhaps the weather would have some effect there.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It would.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Fort McPherson, Northwest Territories. Would it have some effect up there? I think it would. Liard, Northwest Territories; Cambridge, Northwest Territories; Hay River, Northwest Territories; Ak-

lavik, Northwest Territories. Perhaps the weather would have something to do with it up there.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It would.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Simpson, Northwest Territories; Arctic Red River, Northwest Territories; Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. Newfoundland: construction of detachment quarters all along the rock-bound coast around the whole of Newfoundland where the material has to be brought in by boat and where difficulties not so much of weather but in the matter of communications are encountered. That is the list of the locations. If my hon. friend's knowledge of Canadian geography is as great as he claims it to be-and I believe it is- I think he will agree that when you are talking about Aklavik and all these places I have mentioned here, in which the mounted police function as well as in the cities of Canada, the time of the fall freeze-up and the like would have a great deal indeed to do with whether you could get your money expended within the fiscal year.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, after going over the geography of Canada, may I ask how much of the amount of $4 million being asked is being expended in places that are affected by climatic conditions? Come on; give us the amount.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On these Newfoundland
detachment headquarters all around the entire coast of Newfoundland, reached only by boat, on that one item alone there is over $1 million.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Out of the $4 million?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; out of the $4 million.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is that part of the country weather-bound any time during the 365 days of the year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest that my hon. friend ask his fellow member behind him not as to whether it is weather-bound by cold but as to whether there are not at these places problems of communication, freight shipment and the like, and of getting materials in to do the work.


William Joseph Browne: Can the
minister say where these headquarters are being constructed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At places all around the coast of Newfoundland. I could give my hon. friend the details.


William Joseph Browne: Will the minister give the names of the places?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Harbour Grace, Hawkes Bay, Ferryland, Glovertown, Harbour Breton,

Hampden, Burgeo, Baie Verte, Twillingate, Deer Lake, Stephenville Crossing, Claren-ville, Stephenville, Whitbourne, Burin, St. Lawrence and Placentia.


William Joseph Browne: Only two or three of those would be ice-bound during the winter and spring.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not suggesting that it is merely a question of being ice-bound. I am suggesting that by reason either of cold weather, as in Aklavik for example, or by reason of difficulties of communication, or of their being storm-bound at certain periods, or because of other difficulties which have to do with the ease of construction, when these buildings are to go up in an isolated locality it makes a great deal of difference as to whether we can get men in within a certain period of time, as compared with say Rockcliffe or Toronto.
When my hon. friend stops to reflect he will realize that when we are talking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment buildings being constructed at these isolated points, we are undertaking an entirely different type of construction problem from that which we would have in a large city. There is the problem not only of weather, but of getting skilled tradesmen out to an isolated area, away from the city where they are now in great demand. Having regard to all the problems which arise in connection with the construction of these buildings, I do not think that my hon. friends of the official opposition, who like to be fair-as a rule they are very fair-would want to question our statement that there is a difficult problem in getting this work completed at these places, and berate me because I cannot get up and honestly say to my fellow members: "I am sure that if you vote $4 million, it is all going to be spent come next January". I cannot do that. No honest man could.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to say only this. I do not think the minister is quite right in saying there are special difficulties in most of these places. Most of the places he has mentioned are well known and are accessible at almost any time of the year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Places in Newfoundland, you mean?


William Joseph Browne: It is places in Newfoundland that I am speaking about. I should say there is no special difficulty with regard to most of those places.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pensions and other benefits-
430.	Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $6,863.
William Joseph Browne: I should like to ask the minister whether, when they took over the Newfoundland Rangers, the men received the pension rights under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and whether their families can also benefit from the pension fund created for the families of the mounted police.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. When the Rangers were taken into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police their pension rights were protected, subject to their paying for their service in the other force; that is, in the Rangers force. That was done on the same basis as that upon which-


William Joseph Browne: Was the
basis the same as that on which the civil service of Newfoundland was taken in?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I cannot say whether it was the same as the civil service, but I know that it was the same basis as that upon which we took over the British Columbia provincial police. In taking over those provincial police forces we have to preserve, as regards pension rights, a parity between the various provincial forces. That is where the comparison is made. We applied to Newfoundland the same principle that we had previously applied to British Columbia.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Under this item 430, at page 476 of the details I notice that the amounts are quite different. I should like to ask what is the principle on which the amounts are fixed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The pensions are paid to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, and the amount which is paid is half the pay to which the deceased mounted policeman was entitled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have the increases been occasioned by the fact that he would now have been in receipt of more pay had he lived? Is that the occasion for the increase? I am not complaining about the increases, because they are all small. We should just like to know the basis of it; that is all. I suppose it is because salaries have increased in the meantime.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. These are, in substantial part, old cases which have been carried on under this allowance when it was created. There was not always a provision in the statute for a pension of that sort, and prior to that provision being made there was a separate item in the estimates to take care

Supply-Justice
of it. These are a carryover, and the adjustment is as between their previous status and the new status under this new statute.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
173. Departmental administration, $338,505.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister intend to make any general statement on introducing the estimates of his department? I would suggest that if he sees his way clear to do it, he might do so by a particular reference to two subjects: First, the way in which he proposes to deal with amendments to the Criminal Code; and second, the report of the royal commission on combines legislation. I make that suggestion for this reason. If we are to be told, as perhaps we are, that it is still intended to introduce the bill on the Criminal Code during this session, then it would suggest, at any rate, that we do not now pursue too closely any inquiries into the Criminal Code and that whole subject. In the same way if the minister can tell us what the proposal is with respect to the report of the committee on combines legislation, if we did ask questions at least they would be more pertinent to that question than if we just covered the whole field. Therefore I think it would be appreciated if the minister would make some sort of statement on at least these two subjects.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know whether it has come to the attention of the hon. member, but a bill on the Criminal Code was introduced in the Senate and is being considered there now by a Senate committee. It will come back to this house in due course and be debated on second reading, and again in committee. Therefore I would be merely anticipating the debate which would have to take place in any case. Indeed I doubt very much whether I would be in order, debating at another time in the house a matter which is already under consideration, having regard especially to the fact that it was mentioned in the speech from the throne and therefore cannot be anticipated in a debate of this kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was really seeking information as to whether it is to be proceeded with at this session.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There have been rumours to the contrary.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They are unfounded. Certainly so far as the Department of Justice and the government are concerned the intention is to proceed with the new Criminal Code at this session. It has been introduced in the

Senate; it will be dealt with there, and it will come back here and be passed. A great deal of work has been done on it already. The work of the committee which prepared it extended over a period of three years. They did a really good job, and consequently we should not have much trouble with it.
With regard to the report of the Mac-Quarrie committee, that has been received and tabled. Only today the Prime Minister and I signed the resolution which is to go on the order paper leading up to the Combines Investigation Act amendment bill. This as a money bill. It will be introduced in the course of the next day or so, and will go through the ordinary routine.
I did not think there was any other part of the Department of Justice that required any introductory remarks by myself, with the possible exception of the penitentiaries. When we get to that item I might make a short statement reviewing the major developments of the last year, which might not be too apparent from a hasty reading of the annual report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
175. Administration of justice-miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $21,200.
Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a matter on which I want the minister to comment. I am sure he will have read, and with a great deal of interest, the report of an address by General J. A. Clark, Q.C., of Vancouver, the president of the Canadian Bar Association, to the Alberta section of the bar association. The article dealing with appointments to the bench was reprinted starting on page 28 of the January issue of the Canadian Bar Review. General Clark makes a number of most interesting comments. It is late in the day to start a general debate on the matter if, indeed, such should be necessary. But the starting point of my approach to this would be the reference he makes to the resolution passed by the bar association in 1949, as follows:
That the government of Canada be requested to consult with a committee consisting of the chief justice of the province and the chief justice of the trial division and representatives of the benchers of the law society in the province mentioned before making any appointment to the bench of that province.
As a starter I was going to ask the minister to make some reference to that resolution, and indeed to the whole matter of the article, because it is an important one. It is four minutes to six, and I do not know whether the minister feels that he could cover it in four minutes. I rather doubt it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not really think one could cover it in four minutes. As my hon. friend indicates, this is a very important matter, one which is worthy of comment and upon which I would be most happy to make some comments, because while I agree with many of General Clark's observations I do not by any means agree with all of them, and I would very much like the opportunity to indicate the ones with which I do not agree.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could we call it six o'clock?


The Deputy Chairman:: Is item 175 carried?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. The minister himself said he did not think he could cover it before six o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let that item stand, and we can go on with the other items and come back to it.
Item stands.


William Alfred Robinson: Then item 175 stands. Is item 176 carried?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.
176. Administration, $165,216.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask a question with regard to temporary assistance. The details appear on page 215 and show that the salaries for the permanent positions amount to $181,000 and for the temporary positions, $106,000. I would like a word as to that. We know it exists throughout the service. I should like to know the reason for that large percentage.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the department we have two classes of employees. One class is the permanent and the other those who are temporary. I cannot at the moment give a specific definition of the two groups so as to define their characteristics, but I am right in saying that the words "temporary" and "permanent" do not possess in the context the dictionary meanings that we usually ascribe to these words.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is six
o'clock. Perhaps when we meet again the minister will be able to let us know what the conditions of employment, salaries and pensions are vis-a-vis one another.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the resolutions and ask leave to sit again?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: I am told by the Minister of Finance it was agreed with the leaders of the opposition parties that tomorrow we will have interim supply. Then we
Supply
would continue with the estimates of justice, and then consider the estimates of resources and development and public works.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Privy council office-
315.	General administration, $346,391.
Prime Minister's residence-
316.	Maintenance and operation, $25,000.
General-
317.	To provide for expenses of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan irrigation and power project, $70,000.
Federal district commission-
318.	To provide for maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa, and to authorize an amount not exceeding $142,400 for construction, improvements, maintenance and operation of the parkway system under the control of the federal district commission which is additional to the sum of $300,000 granted by chapter 55, statutes of 1927, as amended, $433,794.
319.	Expenses of the national capital planning committee, $45,000.
320.	To authorize payment of the fifth instalment to a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, known as the national capital fund, established under vote No. 809, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
169.	Office of the secretary to the governor general, including the salary of the secretary to the governor general at $7,600 additional to salary authorized by chap. 182, R.S., 1927, $120,224.
170.	To authorize and provide for the reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as follows: (a) where the population of the province at the last decennial census did not exceed 500,000, $5,000; (b) where the population of the province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $5,000 plus $1,000 per each 100,000 or fraction of 100,000 of population over 500,000, but not exceeding $12,000 in any case, $86,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
173.	Departmental administration, $338,505.
174.	Remission service, including remuneration to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other police forces and members of social welfare organizations (to be expended under order in council, and not to exceed $4,400) for assistance to this service, and an amount of $13,830 to reimburse the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force the amounts disbursed by them in salary payment to their men on loan to this service, $122,501,
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
422.	General administration, $367,953.
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
423.	Operation and maintenance, $25,210,272.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
424.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $4,298,491.
Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal Statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
425.	Operation and maintenance, $1,222,248.
426.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $200,000, $409,000.
Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
427.	Operation and maintenance, $281,666.
428.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $138,300.
429.	Grant to the Chief Constables' Association of Canada, $500.
Pensions and other benefits-
430.	Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $6,863.
431.	Pension to Basil Burke Currie, $685.
432.	Pension to Annie A. Greer, $254.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 29, 1952