1952-03-31

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a matter of personal privilege. An editorial in the Montreal Gazette this morning refers to the NATO statement made by the C.C.F. national council and a reference therein to "the control of NATO by the military and certain American influences." It then goes on to say:
Somebody decided to ask the C.C.F.'s national leader, Mr. M. J. Coldwell. In the House of Commons, Mr. Coldwell cleared his throat and made the startling announcement. These certain American influences were President Truman and Mr. John Foster Dulles!
No such statement was made in this house by me. In explanation may I say that it is a distortion of a question and answer asked by Mr. Arthur Blakely on the C.B.C. program "press conference" recorded last Friday for broadcast tonight. Reference to this conference until broadcast is, I am informed, entirely unethical but this is a matter for the press gallery and the C.B.C. However, this morning I had the C.B.C. play back the recording to be broadcast tonight and I wish to place on the record a stenographic report of Mr. Blakely's question at the conference and my answer. The question by Mr. Blakely was:
The inference-a clear inference-if these certain American influences are not the military-now who are they?
My answer was as follows:
Mr. Dulles said not long ago that we could not take a negative attitude on China. For example, we had to take a positive attitude. In other words, we had to carry on the war against China and even the president himself, as you will recollect, made the statement that we had a choice of a premeditated war-or what was the other phrase-a negotiated settlement-and if you had been in the United States, as I have been recently, you would realize that there is a very large amount of public opinion being worked up by commentators and others in the United States for a positive war. That is what I had in mind.
My authorities for the answer I made, which of course was from memory since for my part this was an unrehearsed discussion, was that Mr. Dulles, appearing before the
United States senate committee and urging the removal of the Peking government, said:
We cannot expect a change to take place automatically. To realize such a change will require something besides a negative and purely defensive policy in Asia on the part of the free world, notably the United States.
I think the meaning is quite clear. My reference to President Truman, of course, was of a somewhat different character and was based on my recollection of a reference made on March 21 by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) to the president's speech before congress on March 6, 1952, reported on page 698 of Hansard as follows:
In his message to congress, and dealing with what has come to be known as a mutual security program, the President of the United States said that there are only two alternatives, namely premeditated and deliberate war, or an American withdrawal to the western hemisphere.
I am certain that the hon. member's reference was made on what he regarded as a reliable newspaper's report of the president's speech. I must say, however, that at noon today I looked up the text of the president's speech and I regret to say that I do not think the newspaper report interpreted it correctly. However, it does not alter the fact that both Mr. Blakely's original article and the Gazette editorial, to which I have referred, are distortions of my own attitude, as I am sure listeners will appreciate when they hear the broadcast tonight.



EDUCATION


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe many hon. members have received a letter from the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association which was based on a speech which I made in the house in which I castigated the government of Saskatchewan for its educational policy. This letter creates a most untrue picture of what took place. I did not receive a copy of this letter myself, but I obtained one from another member.
The letter states that I misrepresented the situation so far as education in Saskatchewan is concerned.
I wish to make clear what I said. Apparently when these gentlemen wrote the letter they had neither heard nor seen my speech. What I said at that time was that there were 558 sitters in the schools of Saskatchewan

Education
who were not qualified teachers, and that a thousand schools were closed. I put the situation down as being the worst in Canada, and I still say that that is correct. In fact there are 242 members from other ridings in Canada outside Saskatchewan, and I would ask any one of them to get up and say that they have 1,558 schools either closed or with unqualified teachers in them. I do not think any member will rise in his place and say that he has even half that number in his province.


Major James William Coldwell: Would the hon. member put on the record the letter to which he is referring?


John Hornby Harrison: I shall be pleased to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am allowing the hon. member to state his question of privilege, but I do not think I should allow him to argue his case at this time.


John Hornby Harrison: I think some of the allegations contained in this letter should be answered, and I intend to bring them up now. One of the statements I made was to the effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The only way in which I can allow the hon. member to discuss this matter is as a matter of personal privilege. He cannot deny generally what is in the letter, but can speak only as it affects him personally.


John Hornby Harrison: I shall be happy to put the letter on the record, in full; but some comments are necessary with respect to part of it. The resolution contains, in part, the following expression:
-the true situation in education within the province of Saskatchewan and even of the situation in and benefits obtained by his home town of Meadow Lake.
That is, it is referring to my home town of Meadow Lake. The benefit received by my home town of Meadow Lake is that we have a 42 mill rate with regard to education there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it the hon. member is answering the arguments set forth in the letter. If he is speaking as a matter of personal privilege, then I shall allow him to continue, but not to reply generally to the letter.


John Hornby Harrison: The upshot of the whole matter is that there is nothing for me to tell the house. They say they are writing to me, but this letter was written to another member of the house. I have not received the letter yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to read the letter at this time. He has stated his question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether he has completed it yet. Has the hon. member completed his remarks?


John Hornby Harrison: Well, I should be pleased to read the last paragraph of the resolution. It says:
Now therefore be it resolved that the secretary-
That is, the secretary of the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association.
-be instructed to write Mr. Harrison, forwarding a copy of this resolution and requesting him to withdraw his statement so made in the House of Commons.
In my speech I made no allegation whatsoever against the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association. I suggest that they get the speech and read it. Having stated that they were going to write me, they have created a false impression, because they have never written me, and apparently never intended to. That is my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any further
questions of privilege?



REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook 1952.-Mr. Howe.
Supply of Building Materials in Canada, Outlook 1952.-Mr. Howe.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 63 (from the Senate), to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
1 PRIVATE BILLS



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation.-Mr. Larson.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Florence Edith Holland Clarke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Olga Pretula McGonnigal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Andre Roy.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Libertia Vinivar McClusky Rutherford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Therese Michel Paquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Alice Courey Salhany.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Vivian Clement Mole.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 72, for the relief of Olga Katchan Parisella.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Frederick Ernest Marlow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Frederick James Perkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Roger Lessard. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Phyllis Muriel Skelcher MacDonald.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Audrey Jessie Elizabeth Kinnear Park.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Alfred Ernest Farebrother.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Herve Brunelle. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Jean Frew Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Lucy Elliott Dolan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Phyllis Kaplan Holloway.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Marie Anna Brassard Bachand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Sema Rubin Charles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of George Louis Draper.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of William Young. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Ruth Evelyn Seivewright Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Mollie Balacan Pantel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of George Edward Gumbley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Dorothy L. Grauer Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Can he say whether any remedial measures will be taken to relieve the serious erosion problem which exists on the Canadian south shore of lake Ontario?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: The best answer I -can give the hon. member is to repeat what I have said many times in the house, that the government does consider remedial works when damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures. Our engineers are instructed to report on these cases. When they instruct the government, amounts appear in the estimates if the government decides to proceed.
Inquiries of the Ministry BEEF



QUESTION AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister intend to announce this week floor prices under beef comparable to United States prices, as forecast by his parliamentary assistant in a statement quoted from Middlesex?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, judging from the questions of privilege that have been raised today I do not think hon. members should take it for granted that anything coming over the radio or appearing in the newspapers is absolutely correct. I would rather refer to what I said the other day, namely that we hope to have a plan ready for submission to the representatives of the provincial departments of agriculture by the day after tomorrow, April 2.


William Scottie Bryce: If I may ask a supplementary question, will the price agreed upon be at the farmer level or at the packer level? Will it be on the live or dead animal?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would rather leave that until I finish talking with the provinces.



REPORTS OF FAMINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Caiherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Would the minister make a statement clarifying the reports that millions of people in the state of Madras, India, are facing famine and starvation; and has the government received any representation or special appeal for aid from that country?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I think probably that question should be directed to me rather than to the Secretary of State. I have seen reports in the newspapers about the serious food and water situation in Madras, but no official report of any recent deterioration in the situation has been received, nor has any representation or special appeal been made to this government by the government of India. However, the hon. member will be aware that we are in close touch with the government of India in respect of the use to be made of the funds that we have made available to India in connection with the Colombo plan. Ten million dollars from those funds have been used to purchase wheat for India. That wheat is now arriving there and no
946	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry doubt will be directed by the government of India through normal distribution channels to the areas where it will be most useful.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: May
I ask whether or not the MacQuarrie committee on combines has brought in a further interim report, and whether, as reported in the press on Saturday, it is the intention of the government to introduce amendments to the Combines Investigation Act at the present session?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The MacQuarrie committee has not brought in another interim report. It has filed with me the English copy of its final report, and at present we are awaiting the preparation by Professor Lamontagne of the French copy. When both copies are available, mulligraphed copies will be tabled in the house and submitted to cabinet, and a decision will be reached as to the disposition to be made of the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: The other question had to do with the statement by one of the ministers, according to the press, that it was the intention at the present session to bring in amendments to the combines act. I was asking the minister whether that was the intention of the government. I am referring to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I saw the report to which my hon. friend refers, but I am like my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner); I do not take these reports too seriously. The facts are as I have stated. The English copy has been received. The French copy will be made available, I should think, within the course of perhaps a week. At that time both copies will be tabled and an announcement made as to policy.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether it is correct that as from tomorrow the federal grant to schools of social work is being discontinued? If so, can the minister say why, and whether or not this matter will be reconsidered?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: So often my hon. friend gives me notice when he is going to ask a question. Today he has not done so-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I might get a better answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but happily I can deal with the matter. As my hon. friend knows the government has made grants to universities in the amount of $7 million; and, as the schools of social work were advised at the time, the government did not intend continuing a grant that would be covered in part by the moneys appropriated following the recommendation of the Massey royal commission with respect to assistance to the universities. One school of social work will receive some assistance-that is, the school at Halifax-because it is not fully covered under the terms of the grants made to the provinces for assistance to universities. The schools of social work are aware of the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But one of them has already had to close.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: the supplementary estimates are not passed today will the temporary civil servants have to wait for their cheques, or what is going to happen to them?


Hon. Douglas Abboit (Minister of Finance):: I have every expectation, Mr. Speaker, that the supplementary estimates will be dealt with this afternoon. Of course if it is not possible for them to be dealt with today by both houses it will not be possible to pay those items which contain salary provisions, and which are reasonably numerous. It does not affect all departments, of course.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. M. Warren (Renfrew Norih):: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. I just had a telegram put in my hand coming from Pembroke, dealing with a matter with which I was already acquainted. A citizen of Pembroke went through the ice Friday night and was drowned. Several others

have been drowned there this year, and the people are asking seriously if we cannot have that bridge built at once.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not commit myself to the immediate construction of that bridge. However, the government has introduced an estimate of $50,000 for the preparation of the plans, and as soon as the steel situation eases we will go ahead with those plans and undertake that project in co-operation with the two provinces, which have agreed to make some contribution to the cost.



INQUIRY AS TO RESTORATION OF PREMIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. Aylesworth (Fronlenac-Adding-ton):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, which arises from his latest action in increasing by ten pounds the weight of grade hogs. Does he realize that by doing so he is taking away the premium from the best weight hog that has been produced, namely, from 140 to 150 pounds, and will the premium be restored in the near future?


James Garfield Gardiner: As was stated in the house at the time, and as was stated to the country by radio, for two or three weeks we hoped farmers would hold their hogs on the farm rather than send them to packing houses, where we were not able to find storage space for them. I would like to repeat that the farmers did follow the suggestion in spite of the fact that they did not have much encouragement from some sources. During the first week they retained about one-third of the number they had been delivering. The second week they retained almost one-third. The third week they got back perhaps about half way to their original deliveries. The present position is that we have adjusted the arrangements with packing plants and others-as a matter of fact 1 think we just succeeded in doing so about an hour ago-and we hope to be able to announce tonight that in about three weeks we shall be back on the old basis of grading. In the meantime we hope the heavier hogs will be delivered and payment made accordingly.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: I understand it was agreed that today, notwithstanding the standing orders with respect to committee of supply and committee of ways and means, I should leave the chair without question put.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply-Veterans Affairs SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Pensions and other benefits-
649. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order. P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November. 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act-further amount required, $5,100,000.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a statement which I believe affects the rights and privileges of all members of the house. It is related to the incident which happened as the house was rising on Friday evening. I wish to make certain comments on that incident. I can only regard it-I hope I am choosing my words moderately-as an outrageous attempt by ministers of the crown to deter members of parliament from doing their plain duty. I certainly can remember nothing like it in the few years which I have had the privilege of serving in this house.


An hon. Member:: Do your duty.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It might be a good thing if that were more widespread.
During Friday's debate we had granted interim supply of over $525 million, and also passed items covering some $200 million of supplementary estimates. In other words, we had passed over $700 million. By eleven o'clock, there still remained other items. Among them there was the important item, the first on the list, to provide $665,000 under the act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease. The government had shied away from this important item-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -during both the afternoon and evening, and at eleven o'clock the leader of the opposition was asked to agree to continue the debate. He replied:
... we are certainly not willing to foreclose the discussion on a subject that is of the utmost importance not only to hon. members but to the whole of Canada, and therefore we do not intend to agree to the extension of time. This can be proceeded with on Monday and dealt with in a proper way.
To this the Minister of Finance replied:
I am quite prepared to accept that, Mr. Chairman, of course, but I want to make it perfectly clear to several thousand civil servants, whose cheques would normally have gone out today, that the responsibility for the failure to get them out belongs to the House of Commons.
I would call your attention in passing, Mr. Chairman, to the implication of this

Supply-Veterans Affairs statement. The house sat at three o'clock and the discussion of the estimates began somewhat later. In order that the cheques which had not already been sent out might go out on Friday by the close of business on the basis of what was done in the house that day, the supplementary estimates of over $200 million would have had to be passed at machine-gun speed, with virtually no consideration of any kind, as well as the supplementary legislation.
I leave it to the members of this house-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will the hon. member allow me to interrupt? He quoted me quite correctly, and I said that the cheques would normally have gone out on Friday. It was quite obvious that they could not have gone out on Friday, but had we been able to complete the estimates they would have gone out one day late, the following morning.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am only quoting the minister's words. I thought probably he had meant Monday.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said, would normally have gone out today.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He said
"today" and I am only quoting what he said. The minister was probably tense when he made that statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was strictly accurate. No one ever pretended they would go out Friday if we only started to consider the estimates on Friday. In addition, the hon. member is completely out of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall continue if the hon. members will allow me.


Mr. Howe:: Has the hon. member some special dispensation? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what item is being discussed?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I sometimes find, when I defer to hon. gentlemen opposite, that they are making the speeches and not I. I certainly do not propose to yield now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What item is the hon. member discussing?


The Chairman:: May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we are considering item 649.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I see the
minister smile, and I am not surprised at this point being raised. I suggest that we are here today by unanimous consent. I suggest that it would be a strange thing if this statement, which does affect the privileges of members of this house, could not be made. If that is not the view of the house, led by the government-well, of course we are often reminded that there is a majority here. I


believe, however, that there will be enough sense of fair play in this house to let me finish. I shall not be long.
Let me say in passing that so far as I can discover-


Mr. Sinnoli:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, written speeches cannot be delivered in committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am very thankful for the help which the member for Springfield is giving me.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me say
in passing that, so far as I can discover, the number of civil servants who did not receive their cheques is very small; indeed I hope it is microscopically small. I repeat that the minister's clear implication was that we, on Friday evening, were to act as nothing but a rubber stamp. I doubt if the people of Canada wish their affairs dealt with in that way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On a question of privilege, all I asked the house to do was to sit after eleven o'clock. I noticed the other day that the House of Commons at Westminster sat for twenty-three hours, and I only asked that the committee sit after eleven o'clock. I agreed at once when it was suggested that we should not do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I read the minister's words-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought we might work a little longer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I again refer to the minister's words, and what he was really saying was a threat-


Douglas Charles Abbott: There was no threat at all. I acquiesced in the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That was after the minister had made this subtle little thrust directly to the civil service. As I say, I hope there was a small number of civil servants involved. I want to go back to what he really meant, that unless we were prepared to rush through the rest of the estimates, including the foot-and-mouth disease item-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Chairman-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have I got to submit to this sort of thing? Who is the chairman here?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I am the chairman, and the hon. member for Springfield has the floor on a question of privilege.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I asked for a ruling. Are you going to continue to allow the hon. member to read his speech?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I understand the hon. member is only using notes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I would ask the hon. member to make his statement brief and to the point.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to do that, but I am being interrupted. The leader of the opposition used a strong word in characterizing this; he used the word "blackmail." I thought he was entitled to do so. Perhaps the member for Springfield would be interested in this. The dictionary says-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is reading one of Drew's speeches.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I don't read his speeches.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading a definition from the dictionary, and I want to be sure I have it right. The dictionary says that blackmail means "any payment extorted by intimidation." If the minister's threat does not come within that definition, then I do not know the meaning of plain English.
It is, of course, quite clear that the responsibility for any delay and inconvenience is the responsibility of the government and not of the opposition. By bringing down these items on the last day, the government added another to the long series of acts in disregard of the rights of parliament. There is no reason why the supplementary estimates should not have been brought down several days previously or even many days previously-


Douglas Charles Abbott: They were.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -so that there would have been no last-minute urgency. No one, of course, doubts the reason for this procedure, which is that governments do not like much discussion; and on this occasion the indications are inescapable that they were anxious to avoid embarrassing discussion of the foot-and-mouth disease.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall refer to this matter a little later.


An hon. Member:: What item are we on, Mr. Chairman?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that this is intolerable. The hon. member is completely out of order. He is making a political speech.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am proceeding with your authority and with the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has not the consent of the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite are making this statement exceedingly difficult for me. I may say that it will be much shorter if they let me go through with it. There is not much more.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I understand that it is difficult for the hon. member to make his statement. I would point out to him that we are now on item 649. I would ask him to make his statement and to make it short and to the point.


Mr. Sinclair:: And not read it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am trying to make it short and to the point.


James Sinclair: And not read it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Put your catalogue away.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Notwithstanding the unwarranted delay of the government, we indicated that we wished to cooperate, and on behalf of the opposition I suggested that the pressing items involving salaries might be dealt with first; but the government preferred not to accept that suggestion. Everything we did indicates our interest in the welfare of the civil servants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Especially in Carleton county.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have a duty to our civil servants and we have sought to discharge that duty. I believe, however, that our civil servants will be the first to agree that we also have a duty to the heavily-burdened taxpayers of Canada.
I come now to the item affecting foot-and-mouth disease, which-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I must ask the hon. member to deal with that item when it comes before the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I go back to what I said at the outset. We are here today by unanimous consent. You have allowed me to go through more than half of what I wanted to say, and I do not think it would, if I may say this with deference, do any harm to allow me to complete it. I think it would be convenient for all concerned if I finished this statement now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not agree.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend is relying on unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, I assure you that he has not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fulton:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I have asked the hon. member to make his statement short and to the point. I understand that he now wants to discuss item 563 with respect to the foot-and-mouth disease. I would point out to him that I have called item 649. May I suggest to him that when I call item 563 with respect to the foot-and-mouth disease, it will then be the proper time to discuss it. But at this time I have called item 649, which is an item under veterans affairs, "pensions and other benefits". The hon. member may not discuss the foot-and-mouth disease under this item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that on Friday night, on this same item, there are four columns of Hansard reporting the discussion, and three of those columns practically all relate to the matter which the hon. member for Greenwood is now discussing. The Minister of Agriculture intervened in the debate on Friday night and discussed the very point of foot-and-mouth disease, and his presence in the house, or otherwise, to which the hon. member for Greenwood has just made reference. As the ministers introduced the subject and raised a whole general debate on it, to which the hon. member is now referring, I submit that he is in order in continuing the discussion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, that was entirely on my request that we sit after eleven o'clock in order to consider the estimates further.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Not on this item.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for Kamloops has raised a point of order. Is the hon. member speaking to that point of order?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I am. Inasmuch as we are all equal in this house, and in view of the suggestion that has been made that this discussion arose on the minister's suggestion, as he now puts it, on Friday night, I am now asking, on my suggestion, to have a little bit of discussion which continues the discussion that was taking place on Friday night. I would remind you again, Mr. Chairman, that this whole debate is possible only because we agreed. As the hon. member for Kamloops has so well pointed out, this point was raised and


i
was being discussed when we adjourned on Friday night. If the minister prefers to have it stated that we are continuing the discussion which he began on Friday night, that is all right with me.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That discussion was disposed of. The leader of the opposition refused to sit after eleven o'clock.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh,, no. It was disposed of by the leader of the opposition agreeing to meet here today. Mr. Chairman, I am nearly through, and I hope you will allow me to finish.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I have before me Hansard of Friday, reporting the discussion which was started by the leader of the opposition when we were on this item 649.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The leader of the opposition was not in the house for more than a few minutes.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I notice that item 649 was the item under discussion at eleven o'clock on Friday night. Today I called item 649, and the hon. gentleman said he had a statement to make. I allowed him to make his statement. I cannot at this time, however, allow him to discuss an item other than item 649.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
discussing another item. I am discussing the situation which arose on Friday night, which was then debated but the debate was not concluded. I am trying to continue that discussion. If the leader of the house is willing to allow me to finish-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I have great doubts whether the hon. gentleman is in order. Debate on the subject under discussion on Friday night was concluded. We tried to sit after eleven o'clock, a little over six hours, but were not successful. Today the chairman has called item 649, and I think we should abide by the rules.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The leader of the house just says that he has grave doubts. If I know his inclination, judging from his past record, he gives us the benefit of the doubt if he has a doubt. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to defer to your ruling. I am fairly well through with what I wanted to say. May I be allowed to finish?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I will allow the hon. gentleman to continue, but not to speak about the foot-and-mouth disease, because that subject is not relevant to item 649 which is the one now before the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is only the movements of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to this item that I wish to discuss.


James Garfield Gardiner: You do not know anything about them. Why should you discuss them?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will be brief, because we do not know very much about them, except what he told us. As I say, the minister was absent on Friday; and it is not possible for anyone to believe that he was absent on Friday afternoon-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely intolerable; it is the greatest breach of the rules that I have ever seen in my whole seventeen years in this house.


Mr. Ferrie:: Item 649 carried.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I would ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks as soon as possible.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Carroll:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You have decided-and properly so, I submit-that no hon. gentleman in this house may discuss the foot-and-mouth disease under this particular item.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William F. Carroll: Why allow the hon. member to go on and discuss it?


Mr. Fraser:: It embarrasses the government.


William F. Carroll: He is now attacking the minister on that very point.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am really not discussing the foot-and-mouth disease. I am rather afraid that there is a feeling here among some hon. members that they would like me not to go on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a question of privilege, we will certainly appreciate the hon. member going on, on item 649.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to proceed any further. I will finish these remarks when we come to the item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If you will allow me, in fairness I must make my own position perfectly clear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We do not-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think in fairness-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On a point of privilege, if the minister is to reply, surely I have the right to finish my own statement.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. Item 649 is called. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
653. To authorize and provide for a continuing special account in the consolidated revenue fund, notwithstanding section 32 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to be known as the immigration revolving fund, from which interest-free loans may be made to immigrants, towards the cost of transportation to destination in Canada, including cost of meals en route, under conditions fixed from time to time by the governor in council; and to authorize the crediting to this special account of repayments by such immigrants and the readvancing of such moneys, and to extend and apply this authority to the amount of $3 million provided by vote 648, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1951, $6,000,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like a little more explanation of this item.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is not in his seat at the moment, but, as the committee is aware, a revolving fund loan account was set up to provide for the recovery of loans to immigrants on the cost of their transportation to Canada under the assisted immigration scheme. By reason of the number of immigrants who have been coming in under the scheme, it was found that the amount in the revolving fund of $3 million was insufficient, and the department asked for approval of an additional $6 million, making the revolving fund $9 million in all. That is what this item covers.
As the committee is aware, loans are made to these immigrants to enable them to come to Canada and get settled here, and the loans are recoverable from the immigrants out of their earnings after they arrive here.


Mr. Gibson:: What experience has the minister in the collection of these funds?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, taking an example from April to December, 1951, the number of loans made was 17,095. The total sum committed was $3,162,575, and the actual recoveries during that period, $216,208. I have not the data showing whether all the immigrants are fully up to date on their payments, but I understand in that respect the record has been very good.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the average amount loaned, and what is the basis upon which loans are granted? Are they granted to the applicant before he comes to Canada, or after he arrives here? I should like some general information on this subject, because I know of some cases in which applications which apparently could be justified were denied, while others were granted. I should like the minister to give an explanation of this item, which is a most important one; for it reveals a new policy of assistance to
952	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production immigrants to enable them to establish themselves, and, while establishing themselves, to repay the loans.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a perfectly valid question, Mr. Chairman. I am not in position to give that information immediately, but if the committee would be good enough to let the item stand I could have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration come in a little later and give the answer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister consider this question? I am not quite clear as to the legislative authority, and perhaps the minister will explain that later.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The legislative authority is under the item in the estimates. Since the item is to stand until the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration returns, perhaps he can deal with any question that hon. members may have.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION Loans, Investments and Advances-
654. To authorize execution and performance of an agreement between Her Majesty and Polymer Corporation Limited by way of amendment to existing agreements between them: (a) to provide for the vesting in the name of the corporation of the title to real property, plant, business and other assets (subject to liabilities) heretofore operated by the corporation on behalf of Her Majesty; (b) to authorize the corporation to administer the said property, plant, business and other assets on behalf of Her Majesty, as between Her Majesty and the corporation, as if the corporation was the beneficial owner thereof; (c) to authorize acceptance by Her Majesty for the said property, plant, business, and other assets, and by way of accounting for and in satisfaction of all existing advances made by Her Majesty to the corporation of 1,999,966 shares of capital stock of the corporation, of debentures of the corporation of a principal amount of $8 million and the payment of $3 million in cash during April, 1951; and (d) to authorize accounting arrangements to be established by the corporation as if, as between Her Majesty and the corporation, the corporation were not an agent of Her Majesty, $37,999,966.


Mr. Murphy:: This seems to be an innovation, and since the minister is in his seat, perhaps he would give us an explanation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to make a statement, and after I have made the statement perhaps I may answer the hon. member's question.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That will be all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of this vote is to authorize a rearrangement of the financial structure of the government-owned Polymer Corporation. At the moment, the Polymer Corporation is an operating company only, and the assets operated by that corporation are separately owned by Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada rather than by
[Mr. Diefenbaker.j

Polymer. The present share capital of the Polymer Corporation is represented by thirty-four shares. Now that Polymer Corporation has demonstrated a substantial earning power, which will enable it to pay annual dividends to the crown, it seems desirable to provide a capital structure for the company which will serve as a proper background for the consideration of owner-customer-labour relationships as they affect policy decisions by the management and directors and by the crown as owner of the company.
It will be remembered that construction of the Polymer plant was undertaken in 1942, when the entry of Japan into the war threatened to cut off Canada's supply of natural rubber. The plant was rushed to completion under the stress of wartime conditions, and was brought into production in 1944. It is the only completely integrated rubber plant on the North American continent. Its operation has been financially successful since the inception of its operation. During the war it supplied the synthetic rubber required for Canada's military effort, as well as for its civilian requirements, and the rubber manufactured by Polymer saved a situation which without it might well have been disastrous.
Since the close of hostilities, the plant has continued in operation, notwithstanding the fact that for a considerable time the Canadian market for synthetic rubber contracted sharply. An effort was made to sell the various products entering into the production of rubber in a way that would provide raw material for complementary Canadian industries. The products then made available to industry have formed basic raw material for those privately-owned plants subsequently built in the Sarnia area which have transformed that area into the so-called chemical valley of Canada.
In addition, export markets for synthetic rubber were opened up in Europe and in the United States and, by means of intensive research, new types of rubber were developed which have made the synthetic product more competitive with natural rubber. These activities have made it possible to operate Polymer continuously at, or close to, full capacity. Polymer has now developed an annual sales volume of some $48 million, and has been able to earn substantial profits from the moderate and stable prices that it charges for its products.
To build and operate the plant, the crown has advanced moneys from time to time, and at 31st March, 1947, such advances stood at $42,886,298. Of this amount, $4,886,298 has been repaid by Polymer as a reduction of capital. The present investment of the

crown in Polymer is therefore $38 million. However, the fixed assets of Polymer, representing land, plant, equipment and other assets, at cost, are estimated to be $68,404,000, the additional $30,404,000 having been provided from the earnings of Polymer. The latter expenditures have been made in order to bring the plant into balance with peacetime markets for its products and, more recently, to expand the over-all output of rubber by about forty per cent. These payments have been made possible by the fact that, over the years, the company's depreciation reserve has been built up to $29,700,000 and, in addition, surplus earnings have amounted to about $19,400,000. The earnings for the current year do not fully reflect the earning power of the last major plant expansion, which was completed at the last year-end; nevertheless, the earnings for the year 1951-52 will be in the order of $9 million after depreciation.
Following ordinary business practice, the time has come to set up a capital structure *consistent with the government's investment and consistent with the earning power of the property. The proposal is to transfer ownership of the Polymer assets from the crown to the Polymer Corporation in exchange for two million shares of common stock, which will represent $30 million of fixed assets, and also to deliver to Her Majesty $8 million of four per cent serial debentures maturing at the rate of $1,000,000 per annum, commencing March 31, 1953, with provision that the debentures may be retired in advance of the due date should the directors so decide. It will then be the policy of the Polymer Corporation to declare dividends to Her Majesty on the stock of the company as earnings from year to year will permit.
In the administration of the Polymer Corporation we have, as far as possible, followed normal commercial practice. The company maintains its records in the same form as well conducted commercial companies. It values its inventories and other current assets on the basis of good commercial practice. It charges normal amounts of depreciation into its operations at rates authorized by the tax authorities. It is, in fact, a commercial plant operating in a commercial community, with very close relationships between it and the other large corporations that combine to make Sarnia one of our great centres of chemical manufacture.
No change is contemplated in beneficial ownership of the assets or in the policies and management of the corporation, but I believe that a recasting of the financial structure of the company will, as I said at the outset,
Supply-Defence Production
provide a clearer picture of the crown's investment in this enterprise. It will also provide those charged with the direction of the company with a better background against which to assess and compare the operations of the company with similar operations. For example, the present advances are noninterest-bearing, but it is proposed that a part of the crown's investment will in future be represented by interest-bearing debentures with serial maturities. It is planned to have the balance of the crown's investment represented by capital stock, and it is the government's intention, so long as satisfactory profits continue to be made, that the company shall pay regular dividends on its stock. Interest, dividend, and sinking fund requirements will thus have to be taken into account by the management in their policy decisions affecting sales price of the product, proposals for capital expansion, or any other corporate matter that is normally considered in the light of these factors.
The whole situation may be summed up by saying that the proposed rearrangement of the financial structure makes no change in the beneficial ownership of the enterprise, and does not diminish in any way the practical control of the government over the corporation's operations. It does, however, provide those charged with the management, as well as the owners of the enterprise, with yardsticks by which the efficiency and success of the operation may be considered.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to be very long dealing with this matter. I am sure the committee was gratified, as I was, representing the riding that I do, at the success of this crown company. I think much of this success is due to the excellent management and the co-operation which that management has had from labour in Sarnia and the surrounding area. True enough we were fortunate-when I say "we" I mean Polymer -in enjoying a rising market.
I can hardly make up my mind at the moment, but personally I cannot see any objection to this procedure under this item. Having just heard the minister's statement it was rather hard for one sitting here to analyse it as it was being read. I wonder if the right hon. minister would comment upon the figures he has just quoted. As I understand, he is bringing us more up to date than is indicated by the 1951 statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Joseph Warner Murphy: There are some observations I should like to make about this successful company. It is true enough that the company had hard sledding when they started and I am the first to admit that construction

Supply-Defence Production
costs were higher than they would be under ordinary circumstances. We were in a hurry to get this plant built because the product was a necessity in the prosecution of the war.
I am not going to comment on the interest arrangements under the proposal, as from a business standpoint they seem to be sound. Whether it is a crown company or a private company, current business administration applicable to the operations of a successful business should apply. I notice from this estimate that some different accounting arrangements will be made. That too should be fair.
In concluding my remarks I want to make a few observations about former reports of Polymer. I do not intend to be very long. This is the annual report for the year ending March 31, 1951. The statement is made here that provision for depreciation was made in the amount of $4,830,532, an increase of one million and some odd dollars over the previous year. The minister has stated that the profits would be more for the current year-I assume that that is the year ending March 31, 1952-being somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 million. That is after allowing for proper depreciation. When he replies I wonder if he would comment if the amount of depreciation has been settled.
I am happy to see from this report that the moneys received by the government from this project total $13,491,355. According to this same balance sheet the net profit for the year ending March 31 last was $4,108,363, after allowing for the extra amount for depreciation, so it would seem that the year just concluded or being concluded was much more successful than the year previous.
The land upon which this project is erected cost $240,747. The buildings cost $10,249,292 less depreciation-there is no depreciation on the land-totalling $3,888,901, which leaves the cost of the buildings less depreciation as $6,360,391. According to this statement, the total cost of the whole plant is $57,853,906.
These figures give a picture of this successful crown company. We have had enunciated in the house the government formula for payments in lieu of taxes. We all know that crown companies are not subject to taxation. Since coming here I have argued that crown companies, the same as any other companies, should be prepared to meet their municipal responsibilities. Being in Lambton I know the situation. We are like any other city. We are growing fast, industries are coming in, and they are demanding all municipal services, including educational facilities. I think every member will agree that the main item today in our municipal tax bill is the cost of education.
I know hon. members on this side of the house were pleased when in 1949, I believe it was, the Minister of Finance announced the formula for taxation, or for payment in lieu of taxes by crown companies. My record shows that he made his statement on November 14, 1949, although it is possible that he may have made an announcement before that.
The announcement at that time which we found most gratifying-and we realize of course that the Minister of Finance was stating government policy-was the one set out at page 1706 of Hansard for November 14, 1949, where the minister said:
Finally, I wish to say a word about the position of property held by crown corporations. With respect to such property the situation is complicated, but in general the policy of the government will be to authorize its crown corporations to work out fair and equitable agreements with the municipalities in which their properties are situated.
And again on the same page:
In general, as I have indicated, the policy will be to have crown corporations work out arrangements with municipalities which are fair and equitable under all circumstances.
Again, on December 10, 1949, as reported at page 3129 of Hansard the Minister of Finance said:
It seems to me however that in the public comment respecting the outline of the proposed policy insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that in the case of crown corporations tax agreements will be made for the payment of fair sums in lieu of taxes-
And again, speaking on June 18, 1951, in the debate on the Municipal Grants Act, I had asked the minister a question, to which he replied in these words, as reported at page 4222 of Hansard:
I announced some time ago, as a matter of government policy, that these various crown agencies, crown companies and the like, were instructed to make with the municipality in which they operated appropriate arrangements for the payment of moneys in lieu of taxes-
There are many crown companies across the country, and in Sarnia we are most fortunate in having a successful one. However, there will be places in the dominion to which the policy announced by the minister, in respect of payment in lieu of taxes, will apply. It is possible that when the St. Lawrence seaway projects gets under way many more municipalities will be affected.
The point I make is that during and after the war we were not so deeply concerned about the points from which revenue was derived, nor were we so keenly interested where we got goods, so long as we got them. The people accepted the responsibility. I wish to be fair by stating that since that time some of these municipalities and cities have developed so rapidly industrially that


they are now severely burdened by municipal taxation. Because of our industrial expansion and all it entails, we are today faced with a predicament, one which I hope does not apply to many other municipalities-although I fear it does. Our tax rate is so high that we cannot even proceed with the completion of a new hospital. We are situated on the river, right next to lake Huron, and have a sewage problem. I understand we are asked to co-operate with the dominion government in making some effort toward the building of a sewage disposal plant. It is only a few days ago that the mayor of Sarnia stated frankly -that we could not afford a sewage disposal plant.
I mention this as a predicament, because what I shall say in the next few moments will, I am sure, show that it is such. We need revenue. It was government policy prior to 1949 that the Polymer Corporation should pay to Sarnia the small sum of about $10,000 or $25,000. Then, last year when Polymer became part of the city for the first time the corporation made a payment of $45,000.
My contention is that, regardless of whether Polymer is a crown company, or privately owned, it has a responsibility to the municipality in which it is located. Neither Sarnia nor any other municipality can face increasing obligations without fair assessments and fair payments by crown companies and other industries.
A few moments ago I said that the total cost of the land occupied by Polymer was $240,747. I know the Minister of Defence Production will agree that today it is worth perhaps ten times that amount. The buildings cost $10,249,292, less depreciation. Those are the two items upon which the assessor bases his final assessment.
The situation at Chalk River is not parallel with that in Sarnia. Chalk River is different in that employees had to be brought to that area and, because of the nature of the operations there, the area had to be isolated. We understand that in that instance the government provided for all educational costs, as well as the costs of streets, highways and all that sort of thing.
We do not expect that sort of treatment in Sarnia; but I do say both to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Defence Production that the Abbott formula-perhaps I should call it the government formula-is clear, that crown companies must come to agreements with municipalities on bases that are fair and equitable.
This is all we ask-an agreement on a fair and equitable basis. When a government
31, 1952
Supply-Defence Production passes laws the citizens of the country are expected to respect and obey those laws. As taxpayers we must see that the government respect their own laws affecting payment to municipalities. It must be prepared to honour the formulae or resolutions it may make in respect of municipalities.
Last year $45,000 was accepted, but there has been a great deal of controversy in the matter. The budget has been struck for this year, and I learned through conversation last Saturday with members of council that the mill rate in that locality will be up by five or six points if, as indicated, Polymer pays only $100,000.
In referring to this matter on previous occasions I said that in Sarnia we had a perfect illustration of a fair and equitable arrangement of this kind. On one side of Polymer we have Dow Chemical and on the other side Imperial Oil, all three major chemical producers and correlated in many respects. So I do not think anywhere in Canada we could have a better illustration of the way this formula should work, under which a crown company is supposed to pay in lieu of taxes an amount that is fair and reasonable. Last year I understand Dow Chemical paid $40,000 or $45,000, and this year their payment will be up by $5,000. The minister knows these plants better than anyone else in the house, I am sure. I have been through them several times, but he is an engineer and knows more about it than I do. Last fall in this house, when both the ministers to whom I referred a few minutes ago were in their places, I said that if Dow Chemical should pay $45,000 or $40,000, as the case may be, a fair comparison would be that Polymer should pay five to seven times that amount.
So I am asking, Mr. Chairman, that something be done before the budget for our city is finally adopted. We wall do everything possible, as we have in the past, to co-operate with any industry that comes to Sarnia. As I said before, we are proud to have Polymer. I think every member of this house is glad to have the formula which has been introduced, but I ask that it be fairly interpreted. I have attempted to present my case fairly, and I hope the government will seriously consider a different interpretation of that formula as it applies to the Polymer Corporation. If they do so the payment to the city of Sarnia in lieu of taxes will be in the neighbourhood of $350,000 to $450,000, based on the present value of the land and buildings. I know that just recently in Sarnia they had what I think they call a scientific assessment of industrial and other areas of the city, probably with the idea of getting a fairer assessment. Like many other places our system

Supply-Defence Production may be outmoded, or the basis of assessment may be unfair, and for that reason this new assessment has been made. I do not ask that anything be done before this item passes, naturally, but I hope that before too long the government will give us the consideration we expect under its own formula.
I have tried to be very fair in my presentation, because I do not want to create the impression that anyone is dissatisfied. I simply say we have the formula, so let us have it applied fairly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I should say a word about the tax situation. My hon. friend started out by speaking of "we, the Polymer Corporation", and I thought he was with me. Then he turned round and spoke of "we, the city of Sarnia" in tax matters, and I became a little confused.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am both.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have to take one side or the other or be impartial. I would not like the impression to go abroad that we have not paid taxes in Sarnia. We have made payments in lieu of taxes, always by agreement with the taxing authorities. The situation has changed, as my hon. friend knows. When the plant was built it was not in the city of Sarnia but in one of the adjoining townships. Recently the boundaries of Sarnia have been extended to take in the Polymer plant and I think several other industries in that district. After that was done, or I think it was after that, we made a settlement with the taxing authorities which they seemed to consider reasonable.
My hon. friend is perfectly correct when he says we are there with Imperial Oil and Dow, and that we should be taxed comparably with them. I agree entirely, and I think we are. I would be very surprised if the taxing authorities did not ask as much from Polymer in proportion to our investment as from Imperial Oil, for example; and if that has not been the position in the past we will have another look at it. From the outset we have lived in perfect harmony with the taxing authorities of the district in which the Polymer plant is located, and I am confident we can do so in the future. But I suggest that my hon. friend and I had better not have anything to do with reaching the agreement, because I do not think it is his business and I do not think it is mine. We will let the management of Polymer settle the matter with the taxation authorities of the city. I sincerely hope he will refrain from throwing his weight on one side or the other; and if he will do so I will do the same.

My hon. friend asked a few other questions. He wanted to know about the depreciation. I have not the rate before me. I had a pro forma balance sheet made up as of April 1, 1952, which is the beginning of the Polymer year. Of course the final figures cannot be accurate until the final reports are in and properly audited, but I have a very close approximation as to the results for the year 1951-52. All I can say is that the amount taken for depreciation is the maximum allowed on the property under the Income Tax Act. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,500,000. The reason it is higher than previously is that a very considerable investment in the plant has been made since the last balance sheet was prepared.


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I take just a moment to conclude what I have to say on the matter. I do not think the minister was serious when he said I should not interfere. I am not interfering. I represent the riding, as we all represent ridings and try to do the best we can for them. I know the minister will accept that attitude. I appreciate what the minister said a minute ago, that if the settlement has not been fair it will certainly be looked into. Nothing could be fairer than that. I would like to point out, however, when the minister refers to Imperial Oil on the one side and Dow on the other, that when his directors make the review I hope they will take into consideration the times the different plants were constructed. I think he will agree that in many respects the Imperial Oil plant is obsolete; that it is not as modern as Polymer and not to be compared with it. On the other hand the Dow Chemical plant, just adjoining, was built at about the same time as Polymer.


Mr. Johnston:: Under this item the government is asking for $37,999,966. That is a lot of money; but as the minister indicated a minute ago this is a big plant, representing a lot of capital, and it certainly is an asset to Canada. The minister says it is the largest concern of its kind on the North American continent, so I think we must consider it a very worth-while industry. The minister is to be congratulated on the effectiveness of this plant, which is being very efficiently managed. It came at a time when we had a great need for rubber and rubber products in Canada, in fact in North America. The thing with which I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, is this. The minister said that in 1951 this great plant would earn in the neighbourhood of $9 million; that is a lot

of money. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that with an industry of this type contributing to private industry in Canada and in the United States by supplying them with the raw material, we in Canada should be getting some benefit in the products which are being manufactured from rubber.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that not long ago the member for Charlotte was speaking about the price of automobile tires in the United States. He said that in the United States a tire was selling for about $19, while in Canada it cost about $37 and the companies got their raw material from the same source, namely Polymer. I know the minister will say he has no control over that, and probably he is right. Will the minister say what relationship there is between the price which Polymer sells to Canadian industry and the price at which Polymer sells to United States industry. I understand that the prices are about the same, and I would be greatly surprised if they were not the same. I am not asking the minister to state the exact price, because I do not think that would be good business ethics. I do feel it is a fair question to ask the relationship that exists, so that Canadians will know if they are getting a fair share of the value of the products which are being produced in this country as compared to United States products which are produced from the same raw material.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I think I should correct the first statement the hon. member made that we are asking for $38 million. No money changes hands. The investment in Polymer shows on the books of the government as $38 million, and the ownership of Polymer now rests with the federal government. At the moment it is proposed to turn the ownership over to the company. The $38 million is there simply to remove the investment in its present form from the government's books. The investment is being replaced in the form of shares and debentures which represent exactly the same property that was represented by the $38 million now held in the form of direct ownership.
So far as the price of rubber in the United States and Canada is concerned, we sell rubber in the United States at the current United States price. We sell rubber in Canada at the current Canadian price. For the last several months the price in the United States has been somewhat higher than the price in Canada. A month or so ago there was a reduction in the United States price, and at the moment rubber sold in the United States is somewhat cheaper than rubber sold in Canada. We felt that, having given our
Supply-Defence Production Canadian manufacturers cheaper rubber for a while we might have a breathing spell before adjusting the Canadian price.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is there any material
difference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, only a cent or two.


Charles Edward Johnston: Not enough to affect the price of tires?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the difference will not affect the price of tires.


Mr. Huffman:: I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton West. He was very complimentary to everyone connected with Polymer, but at no time did he mention the fact that the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce, had the vision and confidence in Canada to promote such a project in Canada. I think we should give credit where credit is due.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I said that about two years ago.


Mr. Nowlan:: I am not going to indulge in any discussion of the merits of parliament. I agree substantially with everything that has been said here this afternoon. I should like to go back to the item, because I notice that it reads:
To authorize execution and performance of an agreement-
Is that agreement signed now or are we awaiting the passing of this item before it is signed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: When this item is passed, the agreement will be drawn and signed.


George Clyde Nowlan: I suspected that might be the answer. I feel that some comment should be made about it. The minister, having heard a laudatory statement, will perhaps listen to a critical one which should be made in connection with this item. It is an amazing item, No. 654, and the first part of it reads:
To authorize execution and performance of an agreement between Her Majesty and Polymer Corporation Limited by way of amendment to existing agreements between them:
Then there are paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d). They provide for the authorization and issuance of debentures, shares and so on. As I understand it, the authorization for that depends upon the passing of this item. If that is so, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that in passing this item we are going further in legislating by vote than we have ever gone before, and further than we should. I am not questioning the merits of the transaction. So far as my limited knowledge goes, I agree with what has been said about Polymer. But if you can transfer title from the crown to a

Supply*-Defence Production company or from a company to the crown, and if you can authorize the issue of debentures and shares or authorize an agreement, the nature of which we do not know, then I suggest it is time to stop. These matters should be the subject of a special statutory enactment, and not a vote.
In years gone by the Minister of Finance has brought in acts with respect to agreements between the federal and provincial governments. They have been schedules to statutes. We had an act with, respect to Newfoundland. Here we have nothing at all except one item for $37,999,966. I might say, Mr. Chairman, whatever the merits of this particular transaction may be, and those I do not question at all, you are setting up a very dangerous precedent and one which I think this committee should not accept.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I should reply to that. It is a matter of opinion whether this should be authorized by a special statute or as an item in the estimates, as is done here. I can assure the hon. member that there are hundreds of precedents for doing exactly what is being done here. This is not the type of legislation by appropriation act about which there has been a good deal of discussion, and as to which the Auditor General made some comments in his report or in his evidence before the public accounts committee. This is a perfectly proper way in which to authorize an agreement of this kind, and the essential conditions of the agreement are set out in the item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a few questions I should like to ask and a few comments I want to make. I am in general agreement with what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said today in his remarks on this item. In particular, I am glad to know that the government reaffirms its belief that Polymer Corporation should be retained under government ownership. I believe the minister has made a good case for what is proposed in this item in so far as the aim is to make the bookkeeping picture clearer and to straighten out the capital structure of this corporation.
The questions I want to ask relate, in part, to the wording of the item and in part to the recommendations that were made by the war expenditures committee when it investigated this corporation and reported upon it back in 1944. With regard to the wording of the item, I am puzzled as to what the rest of the $37,999,966 is for. I realize that perhaps we are getting into some bookkeeping complexities, but the only item that is given in the details in explanation is a payment of $8 million. One finds that reference in paragraph (c). The hon. member for Kamloops
t'Mr. Nowlan.]

draws my attention to the $3 million, but that is to be paid in cash during April of 1951, and I would assume that simply is a reference to an item to be brought down in the main estimates for next year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I stand corrected. I had the year mixed up. Even so, those two together add up to only $11 million. The figure is changed but my question is still the same. The $11 million is accounted for in detail but we do not know what the other $26 million or $27 million is for. I take it that in effect what is happening is that we are exchanging ownership of plant and equipment for shares and debentures. Judging by his gesture, I think the minister would like to answer my question now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I should explain this.
This plant was built by money advanced by the government. It paid the bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: $40 million odd.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The investment stands on the books as an active loan or an active investment. The only way we can transfer ownership to Polymer now is to refund the loan. We propose to pay back some $8 million to the government this year. We could pay it back as a return of investment, if you like. Instead of standing in the books at $38 million, Polymer property would then stand in the government books at $30 million. But we do not think that is good financing, or good business between Polymer and the government. We think common stock representing $30 million and debentures representing $8 million is a good businesslike capitalization for Polymer. The new capitalization is exactly the equivalent of the amount at which Polymer stands in the books of the government today. Instead of paying back $8 million as a return of capital, we propose to freeze the capital at $30 million and we will pay a dividend on the capital, which in this case-I do not know what the directors will declare but I think about $8 million-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say how they arrive at $8 million?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assume that the earnings of the company, after depreciation, amount to $9 million and I assume that the dividend may be $8 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I want to know about is the debentures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The relation of the debentures to the total capitalization?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We thought $30 million was a good round figure to represent the capital stock of the company. Debentures disappear over a period, as my hon. friend will know. We thought $30 million capitalization for Polymer would be a reasonable capitalization as a basis for dividends. The capital stock of the company is now represented by 34 shares valued at $1 a share. If we were to pay dividends on those shares, it would mean dividends of about $250,000 a share which would, I think, be the record dividend of all time. As hon. members can see, 34 shares is obviously not a proper basis on which to pay dividends. We therefore say that we will take over the ownership of the property for two million shares less 34 shares at present issued.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which you already hold?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Which we already hold, yes. You will therefore have the company capitalized at 2 million common shares, and any further money that is advanced to Polymer -I do not expect there will be further money advanced because it seems to me that there should not be much further expansion to Polymer and certainly none that cannot be handled through the depreciation account -would be in the form of interest-bearing debentures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for his explanation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wanted to explain that no money is passing. That is the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand now that no money is passing. Earlier I thought that this money was to take the place of the ownership of plant and equipment that we had. Instead of that, it is for shares and debentures to take the place of the loan that is now on the books-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -which was advanced to the company back in the early 1940's. There will now be, as the minister has said, two million shares, all of which will be owned by the crown.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will have $30 million invested in shares plus these other debentures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The plant is actually worth more than that, as the minister indicated when he gave the figure of some $68 million and said-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what the property cost.
Supply

Defence Production


Stanley Howard Knowles: -what he thought was the worth of the plant today.


An hon. Member:: Less depreciation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But at any rate, the title that the crown has to these two million shares gives full ownership of the whole plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is good. The other question I wish to ask the minister relates to one of the recommendations which the war expenditures committee made in 1944. As I understand it, this plant was set up under the ownership and control of Polymer Corporation, which is a crown corporation. But in turn it was provided that the various functions of Polymer Corporation would be operated, in the main, by three operating companies:	Canadian Synthetic Rubber,
Limited, St. Clair Processing Corporation, Limited, and Dow Chemical Company of Canada, Limited. As the minister may recall it happens that I was a member of the war expenditures committee in 1944, and-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could save time by saying that all these subsidiary companies have disappeared. Everything in Polymer is now operated by the Polymer Corporation. As a temporary expedient to get the plant started, we allowed Dow to operate the styrene plant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And butadiene?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Butadiene was always Polymer, but the finishing of the rubber was in the hands of another company which was set up by the rubber industry. But we have taken back the operation of all its assets.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good. That means that I can cut short my remarks at this point. I just want to say that I am glad to know that the government has carried out recommendation (f) of the war expenditures committee which examined the affairs of Polymer some eight years ago. That recommendation can be found at page 867 of the Journals of Saturday, August 12, 1944. The committee recommended that as soon as convenient after the war was over, a readjustment along these lines should be made. Specifically it was recommended that Polymer should itself operate the entire plant. It is good to know that sometimes the reports that committees make are implemented.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Always.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not always.
960	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production


Douglas Charles Abbott: All the good ones.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to revert for just a moment, but not pursue it too far, to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings to the effect that it would be better to do this by way of a statute so that we might have the agreement appended as a schedule to the statute and would have a chance to discuss the agreement itself rather than the somewhat, as they must be, incomplete details appearing under an item in the estimates. But since we have to discuss them on that basis, I should like to ask the minister-either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Finance-why it was decided in this case to use the $8 million in debentures. My understanding is that debentures are usual and in fact useful in private corporations where it is the desire to make a distribution of capital which is quite often carried out by redeeming debentures. Tax implications arise there which make the debenture system a handy one to use. But since there can be no tax implications as between a crown corporation and the income tax branch or the Department of National Revenue in this case, I wonder why they are going through the formalities necessary with respect to the issue of debentures. Can the minister tell me why that is being done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is it not left in common shares?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The whole situation was examined to see what the share equity should be and it was thought that, year in and year out, in good times and in bad, the company could readily pay a dividend on $30 million of equity. It was felt that provision should be made for some further reductions, if only to keep the depreciation account in line. It was a matter of judgment as to what the common stock equity should be. We could have said $38 million of common stock, but we said $30 million of common stock and made provision for serial debentures for the balance now standing in the books of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the intention to redeem these debentures and to retire that capital?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there any indication that can be given of how you will do that? Will that be all done in a year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The serial bonds mature, $1 million each year.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The minister made one statement, and I am just wondering if it was correct. I should like to have the record straight. In answer to a question by an hon. member regarding the expansion of Polymer, I think the minister said that if any further expansion were necessary it would be taken out of depreciation. I just do not understand that; I cannot reconcile making an expansion out of depreciation-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend will find that most expansions are made out of depreciation account. It is perfectly proper to reinvest your depreciation account in capital assets. Some $30 million of expansion has been made and paid for out of Polymer funds; and largely paid for out of depreciation account. The depreciation account represents cash in the company, and if that cash is sufficient it is probable that future expansion could be paid for from the depreciation account.


Mr. Nickle:: Will the minister explain what effect, if any, this item of $38 million will have on the budget surplus of this year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer that-none.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Like other hon. members who have spoken, I look upon this as a sensible business arrangement, but there are just one or two questions that I should like to ask. First, there is this matter of procedure which was raised by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings. I do not want to split hairs, but it does seem to me, notwithstanding what the minister said, that it was a very usual procedure-he may be quite right in that-it is a proceeding that is in one way questionable. Here we have not merely no statute-and I must say, since this is a re-arrangement of capital in the way explained, we hope the government will hold shares instead of physical assets. I would not press that point, but it does seem to me that we have here two things. Not only have we not a statute, but we have not even an agreement as to how the matter is to be carried out. We have a description if it, and I must admit that the items in the description seem quite natural, but it does seem to me when we are asked to pass this item, which in a sense is legislation, without even having before us the document which is going to be the result of it, we should have the agreement. I think that is necessary. The minister said that the agreement would not be signed until there was the authority. Well, that sounds all right, but we have nothing before us yet. If you had an agreement going before a board of directors for authorization, they would not want to authorize an agreement just with certain general explanations.

They would want to see the agreement, and I cannot see any reason in the world why we should be in that position here. The minister may say: There is nothing in it that would be of interest to you. All right, let us determine that for ourselves. Probably he is quite right, but if we saw the agreement we would know the circumstances. I do put it to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a matter which is of importance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend who has had a great deal of experience with corporate finance knows that it is not usual to have the detailed agreements submitted to a meeting of the shareholders. The resolution-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To the
directors.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The resolution of the shareholders, which if it is an agreement which has to be ratified by the shareholders, and most agreements may be authorized by the directors-if it is an agreement that has to be ratified by the shareholders the resolution of the shareholders is couched in general terms. In this particular authorizing item here, the essentials of the agreement are set out in the item. This is a form of authorizing agreement which is consecrated by long practice. It is a matter of whether we ought to bring in a statute with agreement annexed, and all the rest of it. In my opinion it is not necessary, nor is it desirable. To joke for a moment, I think that if we did that every lawyer in the house would want to cross some of the t's or dot some of the i's in the agreement. The details of the agreement are essentially legal details. Does my hon. friend think they should be provided to the house, which is analogous to the shareholders of a company? The government, now the crown, owns this property in its own name. It proposes to transfer it to a crown company. It sets out the price that is to be paid and the way in which the price is to be paid. Surely, it is not the function of this house to consider and pass upon every legal covenant that may be included in the agreement, every legal phrase that is needed to be inserted. To me that is making a joke of the work of this house. I do not know how we would ever get through with it if we went into that sort of thing. Why spend a lot of time on a number of things here?
I suggest that is not the function of the house. There are just two principles to pass upon. The details of this agreement are the responsibility of the executive. I think the house should pass, and it is entitled to pass, upon the essentials, and that is being done here.
31, 1952
Supply-Defence Production


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to split hairs with the minister. As to the analogy of the shareholders, the people of Canada are in my opinion the shareholders, and in my judgment we are in the position of the board of directors. The cabinet is like the executive officers of the company. I am not going to press it, because the minister takes a different view.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree the analogy is not complete.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To come to the practical effect of it, I do not think the bogey the minister raised is a real one. For example, I am not now expressing any view, nor will I, when we come to the details of the foot-and-mouth disease, because I do not know anything about foot-and-mouth disease. My remarks will be of a purely general nature. But being practical again, it seems to me that, if an agreement of the kind we are talking about comes before this house, of course 260 members will not review it, but perhaps half a dozen will, and perhaps one or two may be on this side of the house. As far as I am concerned, the minister has not answered me. I still think we should have this agreement; I still think it should be produced to us before it is ratified. Having said that, I want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce one or two questions on detail. I have looked at the list of directors. Am I correct in thinking that they are mostly outside businessmen? They are not members of the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that they are directors in the ordinary sense. What I mean is, none of them have any special powers such as the governor of the Bank of Canada has.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just directors under the Companies Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister did remark in passing that no interest had been paid by Polymer on the advances from time to time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. There has been some repayment of capital but all advances have been non-interest bearing. No interest has been paid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that a general policy with crown corporations? Here is a case of a very successful operation, where interest could have been paid, presumably. I am just wondering why it is a matter of policy.
962

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Polymer Company does not own any real property. What would it pay interest on?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I see.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The assets are owned by the crown; this is an agency company operating the Polymer property.


Mr. Thatcher:: The Minister of Finance made a reply to the hon. member for Calgary West that I just cannot understand. He said that this would not affect the budgetary surplus in any way. Would not this be a bookkeeping entry?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is a well-known businessman. He understands accounting principles at least as well as I do, I hope. This is now carried on the books of the government as an active asset at $37 million odd. Now, then, we are going to charge that account; we are going to repay, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, that debit in the active assets account of $37 million odd, and we are going to put in an asset of $37 million represented by debentures and stock. This is purely a bookkeeping operation. It is not a charge on operations. We are taking nothing out of this year's revenue to provide the $37 million. If my hon. friend will read the item and if he listened to the explanation given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with a combination of simple accounting principles, and a little bit of law, he would understand what is being done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Douglas Charles Abbott: We asked that item 653 be allowed to stand because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was not in his place. One or two questions were asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I wonder whether we might revert to item 653, since the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is now in his place.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Loans, investments and advances-
653. To authorize and provide for a continuing special account in the consolidated revenue fund, notwithstanding section 32 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. to be known as the immigration revolving fund, from which interest-free loans may be made to immigrants, towards the cost of transportation to destination in Canada, including cost of meals en route, under conditions fixed from time to time by the governor in council; and to authorize the crediting to this special account of repayments by such immigrants and the readvancing of such moneys, and to extend and apply this authority to the amount of $3 million provided by vote 648, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1951, $6,000,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have a question in regard to immigrants, many of whom come over, and their passages are financed by the government. After they get over here, and after a week, two weeks, a month or perhaps more than that if they develop some trouble requiring surgical treatment, or even if they have to have a surgical operation which makes them unable to continue in Canada, what does the department do for them? Does the department look after their medical expenses and then send them back again?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: As I said the other day, that is something that I prefer to discuss on the main estimates. We have agreements with the provinces with respect to aid under certain conditions. I would rather leave that until a later time on the main estimates when I will discuss the whole policy. I prefer to answer only questions with regard to assisted passage at this time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The only reason I brought it up is that I had a definite case-


Walter Edward Harris: Send it to me.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the need for a vote of $6 million at this time? The vote previously was for $3 million. How much of that vote has been spent and to what extent has it been repaid? Why has it become necessary to ask for $6 million at this time? The minister says that he does not want to discuss the general question of immigration at this time, but I think some questions should be answered.
A number of immigrants come to this country under this assisted passage plan, and properly so, and they agree to stay for one year on a farm. They get advances. However, many of them upon arrival decide that they are not going to stay in the employment in which they were intended to stay. I know of one or two cases where men coming over as farm workers made the decision before they actually disembarked at their destination that they were going to the cities instead of the farm.
I think the minister should clarify the matter and tell us the degree to which there is enforcement of the regulation requiring an immigrant who has received assistance to go on the farm. After all, if the regulation means anything it should be carried into effect. I think the minister should give an explanation, first, of the degree to which these loans have been used and the extent to which they have been repaid, and then tell us something as to why it is that immigrants, coming to this country under agreement with the immigration authorities that their destination will be the farm, have on so many occasions paid no attention to the circumstances under

which they come out to this country and rather have made an immediate beeline to the nearest industry in which they could get employment.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the amount of $3 million which was voted last year has been fully used up in the granting of some 17,000 warrants. Of those 17,000 warrants, about 15,000 have been used by persons who have already come here. That indicates that the average loan is slightly less than $200. The result is that all that money has been used and it is now coming back. The amount we have now in the fund is just about $500,000 in repayments. That amount was intended to be used this year partially as an advance to the provisional committee which has taken the place of IRO. That is about the amount of our commitment to them at the moment.
In conjunction with the Department of Finance, including the insurance branch of that department, it has been decided that a revolving fund of this amount is required to maintain the authority to lend money to approximately that number of persons in any given year. Whether the government will do so will of course depend on the requirements for immigration at any given time, but in order to make the fund revolving and actuarially sound that amount is required.
In reply to the other question as to farm labourers staying on the farm, we had an interesting discussion on that on Friday afternoon in which I outlined the factors involved. I think we ended it properly by the hon. member for Greenwood asking me to be prepared to give a full statement on it on the main estimates, which I promised to do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When the Minister of Finance was making a preliminary answer on this item I understood him to say that there had been advanced the sum of $3,162,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I said "advanced" I should have said committed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I understand that the scheme of advancing loans has been suspended for the time being?


Walter Edward Harris: Since last
October.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it intended to reinstitute it as soon as this item passes?


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So that immigrants who are proposing to come to Canada and are short of funds would be well advised to wait until tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask a question that has been asked before. Is this another case of legislating by item? Is this a way of voting $6 million which has never been authorized before and which was not contemplated by the statute?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will remember the discussion on the Financial Administration Act he will recall that one of the provisions indicated that it was quite appropriate that revolving funds of this kind should be created. This is not a vote of an expenditure, it is a vote to authorize an advance to a department. It is quite appropriate to do it either in the main estimates or in the supplementary estimates. That is what the Appropriation Act is for. There is general approval of it in the Financial Administration Act and this is the businesslike way to handle it.
I must confess that this criticism of legislating by estimates leaves me a little cold. There are certain cases of course in which it is quite inappropriate to legislate by an appropriation act, but this in one of the cases where it is appropriate to legislate by an item and subsequently by an appropriation act.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I understood the Minister of Finance to say that some $3,162,572 had been used?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not yet; I said that was the amount committed.


Harry Oliver White: How much has been used?


Douglas Charles Abbott: $3,020,310, less repayments of $216,208.


Harry Oliver White: How do you
proceed to collect the advances?


Walter Edward Harris: The department mails a form to the employer of the immigrant to be signed and agreeing to deduct from the wages a certain amount and pay it to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Harry Oliver White: They would be
collectable.


Mr. Tustin:: In what period are these loans repaid?


Walter Edward Harris: It depends on the amount of the loan, the wages the person is drawing, and similar considerations, but in no case does it exceed 24 months.


John George Diefenbaker: When a farm labourer comes out to this country, secures a job and starts to work, is a certain portion of his wages made payable in return for this advance? If he secures a job in industry
964	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration does he assign in advance a portion of the amount he receives, or what has been the general practice in this regard?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I had made that clear.


John George Diefenbaker: Not to me.


Walter Edward Harris: When an immigrant obtains a loan abroad he enters into an agreement to repay it. The method of repayment is that which I described. An agreement is reached with the employer to deduct and remit to the department each month a sum which is based partly on the income of the immigrant and partly on a minimum of I think $10 per month. We do our best to collect it in that fashion.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us suppose one of these men comes to this country and is supposed to start work on a farm, but fails to do so; is there any follow-up, so that the minister will know where they are?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the department keep any record?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: How is that record kept?


Walter Edward Harris: By the placement officer in the district to which the immigrant goes.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right; but I am speaking of a man who comes into the country and, while he begins to work at a certain job, leaves that job, and goes out on his own responsibility to seek employment elsewhere. Is there any record kept, or do any of these people disappear when they secure jobs elsewhere, thus breaking the contracts they made conditional upon their being admitted to this country?


Walter Edward Harris: Usually an
employer has some information we can use with which to trace an immigrant. It is admitted that some of them have disappeared, and we have not found them. But out of the 14,000 or 15,000 the number is quite small. We continue to trace them until, as in some cases, we find they have died or, as in other cases, that they have disappeared; but there are very few in that class.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister say how many of those to whom advances were made in the amount indicated are, so far as the department is concerned, not known as to residence today?


Walter Edward Harris: Of the 14,000 I think there may be 200 about whom we have no information.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has the record there, has he not?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


John George Diefenbaker: There would not be more than 200?


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, there could be.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like the minister to get that information.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall get it, then.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister must have it. After all, he asks that this item be passed. Surely the committee is entitled to the information. Will he say it is not more than 200? If he will-fine. But if he is just saying that it is about 200, his answer is meaningless.


Mr. Laing:: How can he keep them constantly accounted for?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are trying to find out how many he has not accounted for.


Walter Edward Harris: I regret I have not that information. We have 1,459 in default; but that is not the figure the hon. member wants.


John George Diefenbaker: Do I understand the minister has no record in his department as to the number, out of 14,000, who are today unaccounted for?


Walter Edward Harris: It is 1,400.


John George Diefenbaker: And are unknown?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that right, or is it not? Has the minister a record as to the number whose addresses are not now in the possession of the department by reason of the fact that the immigrants are not in employment?


Arthur Laing: Do you want them to report
every night?


John George Diefenbaker: When the hon. member becomes a parliamentary assistant, he can answer.


Arthur Laing: What about civil rights?


John George Diefenbaker: And he will possibly be able to give better information, too.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the floor.


Walter Edward Harris: I could get the information on that.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will table it, all right.


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Before the discussion goes farther I must point out that this item of $6 million is to authorize and provide for a continuing special account in the consolidated revenue fund to make loans to immigrants toward the cost of transportation to their destination in Canada, including the cost of meals en route. If we are to confine our remarks to the item, I do not think it would include a discussion as to the condition of immigrants after they have been placed. That would be my interpretation of the item. I am not making a ruling, but I am asking hon. members to keep what I have said in mind.


Mr. Green:: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that you have missed the point entirely. The hon. member for Lake Centre is trying to find out how many of these immigrants have lost touch with the government before they have repaid the money lent to them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member has been promised the information.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I understood the hon. member for Lake Centre was developing the point as to how many had left the farms after being placed. However, if the discussion is related to the repayment of the money, I stand to be corrected.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to find out, in anticipation, how much of this $6 million we lost because of the disappearance of immigrants in this phantom fashion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe it was the Minister of Finance who gave information that there was a commitment of $3,162,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Less cancelled warrants of $142,655. These are for the current year 195051, leaving a total of $3,023,000. The information I have is that the actual recovery to date amounts to $216,208. And there is a free balance in the revolving fund of $195,897.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was there ever any advance beyond the $3 million?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What was the figure the minister gave, then?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those were total sums committed; but there were warrants cancelled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister gave a number of figures: I understood that at one time there were actual moneys advanced, by reason of these loans, in excess of $3 million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; it is a revolving fund. My hon. friend will appreciate what that is. You make commitments for, let us say, $3 million. Before the final commitment of the $3 million comes due, some money has been
Supply-External Affairs paid in by the people to whom we lent the first million. The difficulty we have at the present time is that the revolving fund of $3 million is not sufficient. We need a larger revolving fund.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The previous fund was a revolving fund, was it? I understood that initially it was a straight vote.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it has always been a revolving fund.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Loans, Investments and Advances-
655. To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged such advances and to which shall be credited expenditures made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees, the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed $600,000. Vote 566 of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1951, is hereby repealed, $600,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister explain this?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In last year's estimates we authorized a working capital advance fund in the Department of External Affairs, which is the type of fund contemplated by the act, amounting to $300,000. This was to provide for working capital advances in current and subsequent fiscal years to maintain cash and cash balances of Department of External Affairs posts abroad. As the wording of the vote makes clear, it was limited to financing cash and cash balances abroad, but it did not enable the department to make advances abroad on behalf of individuals or to provide for other cash requirements in the agencies abroad.
The Department of External Affairs suggested that the amount should be increased to enable them, for instance, to provide their foreign offices with what is a standard departmental policy by way of making allowances for such things as clothing for employees abroad. These are paid for by 34 monthly instalments. When they are sent to certain posts, particularly in the tropics, they have to have completely new outfits of clothing. The junior employees in particular are not able to finance this, and the departmental practice has been to make that advance to such employees, which they repay in 34 instalments.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is a revolving fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, a working capital fund is a revolving fund, with a top limit. They

Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board <did take it up with the Department of Finance. I had treasury board officials look into it and refer it to the comptroller of the treasury. The comptroller reported that he thought it would be desirable and efficient business practice to enable this type of advance to be made. The committee will appreciate that a good many of these embassies, legations, and so on are some little distance from Canada, and it is not always easy to get a quick decision from treasury board as to whether such and such a thing can be done; whether some Canadian in distress in Shanghai, for example, should be given an advance of $50 or $100. It is something like the working capital account which businesses have in branch offices. It is subject, of course, to regulations of treasury board, as the wording of the present vote indicates: "subject to regulations of the treasury board". The present limit is $300,000, and this item would increase it to $600,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know whether the minister heard some of the interjections which came from two or three sources over here, but how does he square the length of time given these employees with his own consumer credit regulations?


Douglas Charles Abbott: These foreign countries operate on a different basis, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD Atomic energy control board-
656. To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, execution and performance of an agreement effective as of March 31, 1952, between the atomic energy control board on behalf of Her Majesty and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: (a) to provide, notwithstanding section 3 of the Atomic Energy Control Act, for the vesting in the name of the company of the title to real property, plant, business and other assets (subject to liabilities) constituting the Chalk River project to be operated by it on behalf of the atomic energy control board on behalf of Her Majesty: (b) to authorize the company to administer the said project on behalf of the atomic energy control board as agent of Her Majesty, as between Her Majesty, the board and the company as if the company was the beneficial owner thereof; (c) to authorize acceptance by Her Majesty of shares of capital stock of the company in return for the said assets; and (d) to authorize accounting arrangements to be established by the company as if, as between Her Majesty, the board and the company, the company were not an agent of Her Majesty or the board, $1.
Howard Charles Green: I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would explain this item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to do so. The purpose of this vote is to enable the government to transfer ownership of the assets of the Chalk River atomic energy establishment from the crown to a new crown company with

the name Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the Chalk River establishment has important commercial possibilities and that the earnings from this operation will be substantial. Obviously the growing importance of atomic energy and the very substantial capital investments being made at Chalk River indicate that the management of the operation should be segregated from other government activities and operated by a staff without outside responsibilities. Ownership and management of the operation by a crown company seems to be the best means of achieving this objective. Up to the present time, the actual operation of the Chalk River plant has been carried out by the national research council as an agent of the atomic energy control board.
The decision to add a new reactor of commercial capacity has made it evident that the future operation of the property will involve industrial aspects. Therefore it seems wise to relieve the national research council of responsibilities that have become more industrial than research and to concentrate the management in one agency charged solely with responsibility for expediting development in this expanding field. It is becoming increasingly evident that a crown company type of operation can most effectively and efficiently operate this unit and deal with the manifold industrial and commercial contacts and management problems, using normal business procedures and practices.
Hon. members will recall that following the report of the special parliamentary committee on atomic energy which was tabled on December 8, 1949, the government gave serious study to the recommendation that a second pile, or reactor, be added to the Chalk River establishment. The 1951-52 estimates made provision enabling the national research council to proceed with the necessary plans and construction of the new pile. This decision to expand our atomic energy activities in Canada was made in the light of the success which has attended our activities in this field. Within the past year our experience in research, development and operation has made us feel that the large-scale industrial application of atomic energy is closer at hand than we had expected.
At the moment there are two broad areas of chief interest, namely isotope application and industrial power. Much has been said about applications of isotopes and isotope techniques in industry, in medical science, and in research and development. Large scale practical uses for isotopes are developing rapidly, in Canada as well as in the United States and Great Britain. During the past

year the Chalk River plant has made over 800 shipments of more than seventy different radioactive isotopes, to industries, to universities, to research institutions and to hospitals, and it is expected that this business will expand rapidly in the immediate future. There are many who feel that the dividends from the isotope field alone may well repay all the money spent for atomic energy.
In the other broad field of industrial power, the developments in the past two years have been equally rapid. Hon. members may have noted in the press that the atomic energy commission of the United States has announced the awarding of five commercial contracts for the development of prototype power plants for use in submarines and aircraft. While no active steps have as yet been taken in Canada to design and build complete power plants, studies of the component parts that will be necessary to the solution of the overall project are being made. It is hoped that within the next ten years we may see in this country, as well as in the United States and the United Kingdom, the first atomic energy power plants in commercial use.
It is intended that the new crown company, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, will commence operation on April 1, 1952, taking over the operational responsibilities from the research council on that date. It should be noted that for a time at least Atomic Energy of Canada will engage in two parallel operations, one commercial and the other research. It is expected that when the new pile is completed the commercial side of the operation will be self-supporting and that it will in time make financial contribution to the research activities. However, for a time we will have to ask parliament every year for grants to carry the scientific and development division, in much the same order of magnitude as at present.
It is my belief that the Chalk River establishment is laying the foundation for a major advance in the technological development of this country, a development that will play an important part in rolling back the frontiers of industrial Canada.
I am sure I will be asked why provision for Polymer should be made in the amount of $38 million while in the case of Chalk River the appropriation is $1. The answer is that from the commencement the Polymer operation was regarded as a business investment and capital that was advanced has been recorded as an active asset on the books of the government. The Polymer investment has always been considered an active asset. For reasons which I think will be appreciated, the same view was not taken of the Chalk River development. It was regarded as purely
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board experimental. At the time the investment was made no one had reason to believe any important commercial returns were to be expected from the plant. For that reason the money was not set up as an active asset, and therefore there is nothing to write off the books of the government.
The appropriation of $1 permits the assets that have been created at Chalk River to be turned over to the new crown company. The depreciated value of those assets has not been finally determined, but would seem to be in the neighbourhood of $28 million. They consist of the pile itself, the cost of the land, the housing and all the facilities that today make up the Chalk River plant. Any moneys spent for the new pile will be added at cost, and we will have a corporation that will have a balance sheet in conformity with the usual practice. The $28 million, or whatever the amount may be will be represented by common stock, and any additions may well be represented by interest-bearing debentures.


Howard Charles Green: This very encouraging report by the minister is particularly interesting to those of us who served on the special committee in 1949. I would like the minister to clear up two questions, and the first is the position of the atomic energy control board. Under the Atomic Energy Control Act of 1946 a board was set up known as the atomic energy control board, and in his statement today the minister has not dealt with its position. There is that difference between the Chalk River project and the Polymer project. I notice that Dr. C. J. Mackenzie is to be president of the new corporation. Of course, he has been president of the atomic energy control board, and I presume will continue in that position. It would be helpful if we knew just where the board is to fit into the picture.
Then, the other question is this. Has the minister in mind setting up any sort of parliamentary committee on atomic energy such as was appointed in 1949, and was recommended by that committee in its report? The paragraph reads as follows:
Your committee has been in existence for only six weeks and in that time has been unable to complete its examination into the field of atomic energy development. Furthermore, this field .s a new one, is widening rapidly, and may well be of tremendous importance to Canada. For these reasons, your committee recommends that a special committee he reconstituted next session.
In the following session, that is 1950, the same committee was set up to investigate the work of the national research council, but there has been no such committee since then. It is obvious from the interesting statement
968	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board today that this development is already proving to be of tremendous importance to Canada, and apparently we are going to have atomic power much sooner than was expected at that time. The effects upon our economy will probably be extremely far-reaching. It does seem to me it would be wise for some provision to be made so that the house would be kept as closely informed as is reasonably possible. The committee plan might not be the right way, but it is the only plan which comes to my mind at the moment.
In the United States, as the minister knows, there is a committee of congress which has been in existence for many years and has done very good work. They also have a committee made up of civilians, and I believe a third committee from the armed forces. But here in Canada we have no such plan. Can the minister tell us what he has in mind to meet the situation, namely the necessity for keeping parliament in close touch with this vital development?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chaiiman, the answer to the first question is that the atomic energy control board is in charge of all atomic energy operations in Canada. It controls the mining of the raw material, and of the work at Chalk River. The new crown company is a creature of the atomic energy control board.


Howard Charles Green: Set up under that act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Atomic Energy Control Act. We took authority in the act to set up a crown company to manage Chalk River. At the present time, as previously, the atomic energy control board has delegated its management of the plant to the national research council. It is now taking back its authority and delegating it to a crown company which has just been formed. I think that perhaps covers the point. The atomic energy control board is in charge of all atomic energy work in Canada. Let us put it that way.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent is that control exercised? The chief man in both the board and the new company will be Dr. Mackenzie,
I presume?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right. There must be a very close interrelation of the control of atomic energy, and in Canada that has been vested in the atomic energy control board. The board can do almost anything it likes. It could stop mining in Canada. The main duties of the board today are to prescribe regulations under which information can be given out and to prescribe regulations under which raw materials can be mined, and in general to keep the secrecy side of the project in

tune with the secrecy provisions in the United States and Great Britain. The board has never been equipped to do the actual operating. I think it is perhaps wise that it keeps a little removed from the day-to-day operating, and is thus able to view the whole picture.
So far as a parliamentary committee is concerned, I have no objection to a parliamentary committee. I think the hon. member asked for a committee in the first place, and we lost no time in setting it up. In 1950 it was suggested there should be another parliamentary committee. At that time I said that in the interval there did not seem to be enough difference in the situation at Chalk River to warrant another full dress committee, and that instead the committee might like to look over the whole of the research council activities. This advice was followed, Last year there was no such committee. There could be a committee this year. Of course, it is extremely difficult to take a committee into our confidence as much as we would like, owing to the rapid progress of secrecy provisions. We have the McMahon committee, of which my friend thinks so highly, in the United States. It is very jealous of the information that goes out of the United States, and our chance of obtaining information from that country depends largely on our ability to keep the secrets that we have. It makes it difficult-


Howard Charles Green: The information given to this parliamentary committee did not escape to Russia or anything like that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know, but if twenty-eight people know something the information is more apt to get abroad. I would not like to imply that any adverse results came from the visit of the first committee. But all our people are working under secrecy wraps, and it is difficult to bring them before a parliamentary committee and expect them not to divulge information which may prejudice our position abroad. Therefore that is one of the reasons why I am not particularly desirous of sponsoring a committee. If a group of the members of the house feel that we should have a committee, I shall not oppose it. I am more or less neutral on the subject. I cannot get very enthusiastic for a committee, and I cannot be very strongly against it. If the hon. member wants to talk it over with the members of the earlier committee, and if he then thinks that something would be gained by the re-establishment of a committee at this session, I would not be against it.


Howard Charles Green: Now that the industrial uses of atomic energy have become so important,

does it not make it more possible to have a committee? I was concerned with the industrial uses rather than defence purposes. It is quite obvious now that atomic energy is to be used very widely in the industrial field, and what worries me is that parliament is completely in the dark about that development.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the committee went to Chalk River today, they could not be shown any application of the power, because that does not exist. Development has reached a point where scientists are confident it is not very far away, but results are intangible at the moment. I think a year from now a committee would be more interested in the then situation. I doubt if the committee would find very much new to look at in Chalk River today, after having visited the plant three years ago. The equipment is not very different, but the thinking and the actual experiments have led us much farther along the trail than any results that are visible would indicate. I think a year from now you will be able to see some very interesting results. As I say, however, I am neutral on the subject of a committee.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: In view of the strong efforts that are being made in certain quarters to divide us from the United States, do you not think it would be worth while to exchange with United States scientists and industrialists as much information as possible regarding the entry of the atomic age into Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We would be delighted to exchange information with the United States, but their McMahon Act prevents any information leaving the country except under very rigid rules. We are hoping that the provisions of the McMahon Act will be relaxed to the extent that we can exchange information on civilian projects. To date, that has not been possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has pointed out, the report made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce today with regard to atomic energy is a welcome one. I feel that the government, the minister and those working with him are to be commended for the active direction they are giving to the development of atomic energy and in particular to the attention they have given to developing its uses not only in the industrial field but in the field of medicine.
When atomic energy is mentioned, most of us still remember the circumstances under which we first learned of the breaking up of the atom, and we are still aware of the atom's tremendous possibilities for death and 55704-62
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board destruction; but it is also true that it holds equally tremendous possibilities for peacetime uses. I believe that the government is certainly carrying out the will of the people to the extent that it is trying to further peacetime industrial and medical development of atomic energy. I hope that effort will be pursued with all of the capabilities the minister has. When he takes over projects such as Trans-Canada Air Lines or Polymer or atomic energy, things begin to hum. I am sure we all welcome the indication that there might be an atomic energy power plant within ten years.
I am also glad that there is no question as to the continued government ownership and control of all atomic energy operations in this country. I may say, however, that I am concerned-speaking now technically-with the wording of the particular item that is before us. I did not join in the objections to item 654, which were based on the ground that it was legislation by an item in the estimates. I think, however, that that criticism can be levelled at this item. In the case of item 654 at least it could be said that no statute of parliament was being circumvented. The agreement between the crown and Polymer which was to be amended was an agreement approved by order in council back in the war years. But item 656 provides expressly for circumventing section 3 of the Atomic Energy Control Act.
I imagine that the Minister of Finance may want to tell me that that also is a common practice, namely to word items in the estimates in such a way as to circumvent existing statutory provisions. But I would point out that the fact that it is a practice that has been followed a good deal does not consecrate it, to use the word which the minister used a little while ago. The minister could pick out items in the supplementary estimates that are now before us, where that is done. For example, some of the items under the heading of "Legislation" use this same language: Notwithstanding such and such section of such and such an act. But I point out to him that those are examples which the Auditor General pointed to when he suggested that this sort of thing was bad practice. In fact, these very items under "Legislation" are ones that he proposed should be covered by amendments to the legislation rather than by items of this kind. I therefore suggest that the Minister of Finance should not fall back on those other items that were passed in these supplementary estimates as a defence for what is being done in item 656. Here quite clearly we are being asked, by the simple expedient of an item in the estimates,
970	HOUSE OF
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board to set aside the provisions of section 3 of an act of this parliament, namely the Atomic Energy Control Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What provision? Does my hon. friend know?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, I do not know what that section says. I have a great many books under my desk but I do not happen to have that one. Whatever that provision is, I submit that this is not the way to change even a minor provision in an act. It looks as though that is just about the only-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here is the act.


An hon. Member:: Your parliamentary
assistant!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thanks to my parliamentary assistant, I now have the act before me. I did not see who it was who handed it to me-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is the first time I was ever able to help you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for Greenwood. I felt that tall presence behind me and I thought it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North. At any rate, I can now tell the minister that section 3 of the Atomic Energy Control Act reads as follows:
(1)	There is hereby constituted a body corporate to be called the Atomic Energy Control Board for the purposes hereinafter set out and with powers exercisable by it only as an agent of His Majesty.
(2)	the board may on behalf of His Majesty contract in the name of His Majesty and property acquired by the board is the property of His Majesty and shall be vested in the name of His Majesty except shares in the capital stock of a company which shall be vested in the name of the board in trust for His Majesty.
Before the Minister of Trade and Commerce asks me what that means, may I say to him that whatever it means, the government is asking us to set it aside by the terms of this item 656. May I point out that the item is for the amount of $1. Obviously the Minister of Finance did not bring that item before us in order to get $1 out of this parliament. He could pay the dollar himself if that was all that was involved. The dollar item is there for a legislative purpose. I recognize the fact that there are many precedents for this sort of thing; but as I have already pointed out, many of those precedents-in fact, most of them of this type-have been criticized as bad practice by the Auditor General. I do not think that a precedent that has been criticized by the Auditor General should be followed in this instance. If it was necessary to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act, with particular reference to section 3 thereof, in order to pursue the new developments to which the


Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred, I think the government should have brought in a bill to amend that act, rather than do it in this way.
One of the reasons that I took the extra minutes I did in the opening part of my remarks in order to spell out my commendation of the government with respect to what it is doing in the field of atomic energy was to make it clear that I am not critical of that phase of the matter. Without qualification I commend the government for what it is doing in giving aid in pushing development in this field. If I am critical at all, it is not of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-he can sit back in his chair-but it is of the Minister of Finance for changing legislation in this way, by means of a dollar item, instead of doing it in the proper way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said before, my hon. friend would have made a good lawyer; but in this case he is completely off. If there is ever a justification for a dollar item-and there are plenty of them, and the Auditor General would be the first to recognize it-this is the case. The Atomic Energy Control Act authorizes the setting up of crown corporations to handle certain of these operations. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already said, these valuable assets have been paid for out of moneys voted by parliament. The only purpose of this item in the appropriations is to authorize the transfer of this asset from crown accounting-and they are not carried on anything but the books- to this crown corporation which the Atomic Energy Control Act specifically provides may be set up. This is a statute, of course. But if my hon. friend will go back to what the Auditor General said about dollar items I am sure he will find that this sort of authorization here is not the kind of thing which the Auditor General took exception to. Mind you, with all due respect to him, the Auditor General does not make the law in these matters, and his opinion, while it is entitled to great respect, is the opinion of only one man. But I make the assertion here that this item is a perfectly proper item; that it is proper that it should be down as a dollar, which is the traditional method, because the assets here are not carried as an active asset on our books. If my hon. friend wants my legal opinion, for what it is worth,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The amount of this vote is one dollar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -again I say it is a perfectly proper and appropriate transaction. If there were any question of relevance in the matter, it is even more advisable than the Polymer item, which preceded it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister admitted he was arguing by assertion.


Mr. Brooks:: I am sure we are all pleased with the success that has been attained at Chalk River. The minister said a moment ago that they did not exchange information between the United States and Canada, but I notice that the very large plant being set up in the United States corresponds to the plant at Chalk River.
The minister mentioned that this was not a money-making proposition, but he said there were possibilities of dividends now from the sale of isotopes and so on. When I was on the committee I understood the policy was to give isotopes to the hospitals and agricultural organizations. I also recall that businessmen were encouraged to visit the plant and to study just what benefits they could derive from the use of isotopes. Has the policy been changed, or is it still the policy to give isotopes. It is really the sale of plutonium that at cost to hospitals, to agricultural societies and to business organizations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The isotopes are probably sold at cost-at least the isotope business is operating at a deficit at the moment. The reason is we are spending considerable amounts of money in developing items like the cancer bomb and others. Isotopes are given in order to introduce new methods into industry; but after the method is introduced we do not continue to give free isotopes. If the industry uses isotopes in its business operations naturally we expect them to pay for the isotopes. It is really the sale of plutonium that is the revenue producer. I think the revenue last year amounted to something over $1 million.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand you still give them to hospitals free?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, not free, no. We sometimes give them, but it depends on the isotope. It depends on the amount of development work involved. We have no fixed policy, but we certainly sell isotopes at no more than cost.


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly agree with everything that has been said by others with respect to the value of work being carried on and under the aegis of the minister who has given leadership to it. Later on, when the main estimates are before the house, I might make some remarks with respect to the advisability of concentrating it just in one place. We are simply referring to Chalk River here, I presume. I refer only to that, but I am not going to make any further remarks on it. When the time comes, and when we are dealing with the civilian development, I shall have something to 55704-62i
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board say about it. This is a very important matter to us in the east and that is probably why we should take more interest in it than the industrially developed parts of Canada, which have other sources of power. I do hope and believe that ultimately the development envisaged here this afternoon by the minister will come about and that it will go a long way towards solving the power problems in the maritirnes and in other parts of Canada.
I simply want to re-emphasize the protest which I made before against a similar resolution, namely, that of the Polymer Corporation. The Minister of Finance said that it has been the usual practice. Well, two wrongs do not make a right. Now we are down to the position where we are not giving a dollar. He says the purpose of this vote is to authorize the transfer. How do we repeal it? Do we put a minus sign for a dollar? Do we put in a red sign to repeal this section, Mr. Chairman? We are dealing with something which is of fundamental importance to the economy of this country. Some day this matter will probably be before the courts, and I wonder what the judges will say when they ask for the authority. I ask any lawyer in this house to tell me what they will say. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, one lawyer who will have a permanent retainer, and it will certainly be a lucrative practice. He is the present incumbent of the finance portfolio, the Minister of Finance. When he becomes D. C. Abbott, Q.C., in private practice, he will be retained by every litigant across Canada, and he will be the only one who will know or who can say what section of a certain supply bill conferred such and such authority, and did such and such a thing, because you will not find it in the statutes, no matter where you look.
Why do we have statutes? Why do we have the principle of enacting statutes, anu why has that practice come down through the centuries? Why do we not repeal them all and do it by a supply bill? I am not going to take up any more time on this. The minister says that this is a long and well-established practice, but I am re-emphasizing to my hon. friend that some day he will regret it because ultimately we are going to have to face a situation where you will find you cannot legislate on the basis of a dollar, or $39 million odd. You have statutes; you may repeal them, you may amend them; but you cannot do it by supply bills.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; I have something to say on this point. I dislike legal points, first of all because I think they are very dull, and second, I am always in danger of getting over my head with sharp shooters
972	HOUSE OF
Supply-Atomic Energy Control Board Tike the Minister of Finance. I want to read this section to the Minister of Finance and ask him to stand behind what he said a moment ago. As far as I can understand this, what is being done here is flatly in contradiction of-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer my hon. friend very quickly. The section provides that the crown company which is to be set up shall be an agency corporation. It is made perfectly clear in this item here that the corporation which is to be set up is to own the shares which are to be transferred to it. That is a variation from section 3 of the Atomic Energy Control Act, and provides that this may be a corporation which owns the assets, not an agency corporation. My hon. friend may assert that it is improper to do that; I say it is not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is very different from what I understood the minister to say last. The minister is now agreeing, as I understand him, that this is in contravention of, or at any rate we will say different from, what was authorized under section 3.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course, my hon. friend is stating the obvious.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says "of course"; but that is not what I understood him to say a few minutes ago to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said just the opposite.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not responsible for my hon. friend's understanding.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Hansard will show; but I want to reiterate this. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings has said. We are just disregarding the statutes, and we are saying this is a sensible thing, therefore we will do it. It is a sensible thing; so far as I can see there is no reason why it should not be done in the legal way. Some day we will come along to things that are not so sensible, and we will have all these precedents. My understanding was-and I say this without chapter and verse-that the Prime Minister some time ago himself used words which in effect frowned upon this sort of thing. It may be that if the Prime Minister were taking part in this debate he might agree with the Minister of Finance and would say that he would distinguish between them, but at any rate he did use words that frowned upon this sort of thing. I think it is a great pity. The minister now says: of course it is different from section 3, but it is a sensible thing, and therefore we are doing it.
I wish to be on record. I say that it is wrong; that it should not be done; that it could easily be done in the proper way, and there is no earthly reason why it should not. It is not 

a question of anyone not getting his salary. The minister has said there is no money involved in this.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to ask one or two questions concerning Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. How many members will there be in this company? Who appoints them? For how long will they be appointed? To whom does the company report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The atomic energy control board is made up of five members who are appointed for three years. The board reports to myself as chairman of the cabinet committee on research.


John Horne Blackmore: I have similar questions to ask about the company. Will the minister just explain how the directors are appointed and to whom the company will report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The directors are appointed by the atomic energy control board with my approval. There is no term to their service; they are appointed to serve at will. There are nine directors.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to commend highly the minister for the way in which he has kept this matter directly under his control. That is exactly the way we want it to be so there will be no question who is running this atomic energy business for Canada and who is responsible for it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to return for a moment to the point we were discussing at six o'clock because I want to be satisfied that I understand what the Minister of Finance meant. In looking over my own Hansard I took down what the minister said on this point. He said that the atomic energy control board could authorize the setting up of crown corporations to handle certain of these operations.
Before adjournment we were considering section 3 which seemed to be contravened by what is being done. I assume the point is technical, but I want it to be clear that I understand what we are supposed to be doing. Will the minister say what he meant when he said that the atomic energy control board could authorize the setting up of crown corporations to handle certain of these operations? Can he refer me to any section in the

act that covers that, because section 3 seems to be in entire discord with what is actually being done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My recollection is that the
act as it stands, including section 3, provides for the setting up of agency corporations, not a corporation such as is contemplated here which will have title to the assets. To that extent authority is asked under this item to ' derogate from the provisions of section 3. Does that help my hon. friend?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It helps me to this extent, that we are now getting the thing straight. We were given a very different impression of it before adjournment. I am just going to add that I think this is the wrong way to act and I wish to be on record.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a free country and everybody can have his own opinion.


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if I could have another matter clarified by one of the ministers. Paragraph (d) of the item authorizes accounting arrangements to be set up by the company as if, as between Her Majesty, the board and the company, the company were not an agent of Her Majesty or the board. Probably that has some specific legal meaning, but I must say that it seems to be a little over my head.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The original Atomic Energy Control Act provided that a crown company could be set up to administer the development at Chalk River. It was then contemplated that the crown company would administer assets owned by the crown and act as an agent for the crown. That was in the days when we did not contemplate that Chalk River would have any particular earning power. Our conception of Chalk River has changed and we now believe that it will develop into something of the nature of Polymer Corporation where assets have earning power. Therefore we have by this item changed the conception from an agency corporation to a crown company which actually owns the assets it administers. That is the point covered in paragraph (d).


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
658. To authorize, effective from January 1, 1952, and provide for annual expense allowances to the lieutenant governors of the provinces of Canada, to reimburse them for costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties, up to amounts of not less than $5,000 and not more than $12,000 per annum in the case of any lieutenant governor and within those limits not more than an amount of $5,000 per annum plus $1,000 per annum for each 100,000 or fraction thereof by which the population of the province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $21,500.
31, 1952
Supply-Lieutenant Governors
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to register my objection to this item and I do so on two or three grounds. First, the minister will recall that when he introduced his supplementary estimates on Friday he told us that supplementary estimates deal mainly with additional expenditures made necessary in pursuit of policies already determined. I admit that in the statement which he made on Friday there was a qualifying clause which implied that sometimes there might be an exception to the rule. Nevertheless the minister did make it clear that the reason he was pressing to get the items through as quickly as possible was that no new principle was involved.
The item now before us which provides for travelling and hospitality allowances for the lieutenant governors certainly introduces a new principle. Up to the present time the only money paid to lieutenant governors out of the federal treasury has been their salaries as provided by statute. Those salaries vary to a certain extent. The salary of the lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island is $8,000; the salary of the other lieutenant governors, with the exception of the lieutenant governors of Ontario and Quebec, is $9,000; in the case of the lieutenant governors of Ontario and Quebec the salary is $10,000 a year.
I understand that originally each province supplied the lieutenant governor with a residence as well, but in recent years at least three provinces, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have withdrawn that concession and the lieutenant governors of those three provinces must provide their own residences, The item before us proposes to add to the amounts the lieutenant governors are receiving by way of salaries an additional amount to be known as an annual expense allowance. This is to be paid on a sliding scale ranging from a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $12,000 in the case of the lieutenant governors of the larger provinces. I take it that these allowances are to be on the basis of expenses actually incurred in connection with travelling and hospitality.
As I have already pointed out, this is a new departure, and I regret that it is brought before us in the form of a supplementary estimate. In fact, I do not think it should be brought before us through the medium of an item in the estimates at all. In keeping with what we were saying in connection with the item we were discussing just before six o'clock, I feel that if it is desired by the government to make a change in the total amount of money to be paid to the lieutenant governors, that change should be effected by a change in the statute.
974	HOUSE OF
Supply-Lieutenant Governors
I must confess that I am not impressed by this procedure of putting a different name on a portion of the money they will receive by describing it as a travelling and hospitality allowance, as distinct from the other moneys they will receive as salaries. If it was the intention of the government to increase the income of these gentlemen then I suggest that, instead of doing it by means of an item in the estimates at all, it should have been done by proposing a change in the statute. If it was felt by the government that the salaries of lieutenant governors should be increased, why not come at it directly and change those salaries? I do not want it to be inferred that I would support such an increase. As a matter of fact I think that the money paid out in these salaries could be saved, and that the functions performed by lieutenant governors in the various provinces could be performed by the chief justices in the provinces. However, that issue is not before us now but, in view of what I said a moment ago, I felt that I should make my position clear.
As I say, if there is going to be a change, then let it be done by changing the statute rather than by bringing in an item in the estimates. It is a bad thing under any circumstances; but to do it in a supplementary item, particularly at a time when we are under pressure to get the items through because of the deadline created by this being the last day of the fiscal year, is a procedure the government ought not to have taken.
Then, I must confess that I do not approve of the basis upon which these moneys are to be paid. What is it to be for? It is for costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties. The amount that they will be allowed is based upon the population of the province. We are told that an amount of $5,000 per annum is to be paid, plus $1,000 per annum for each 100,000 or fraction thereof by which the population of a province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000. Surely the amount of travelling or entertainment done by a lieutenant governor is not in direct proportion to the population of a province. If the function of these gentlemen is to provide a certain amount of hospitality and entertainment, I suggest it is limited by the number of days in the year rather than by the number of hundreds of thousands of people in a province.
I do not want anything I say to be considered as casting any reflection upon the gentlemen who occupy these posts. I can speak with some sincerity on this point, coming as I do from Manitoba, because of the very high respect which we in that province


have for the Hon. R. F. McWilliams and Mrs. McWilliams, who have been in Government House there for some ten or twelve years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And who came from Peterborough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can also say, with respect to Mr. and Mrs. McWilliams, that when it comes to providing hospitality, those of us who come from Winnipeg know the kind of hospitality it will be. Some of us have had the privilege of attending at Government House from time to time, and when refreshments have been passed around at Government House I am glad to say they have consisted of such drinks as tomato juice, orange juice and ginger ale.


Mr. Harkness:: They should cut off his
entertainment allowance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words I have no fear as to how this money will be spent, so far as the lieutenant governor of my own province is concerned. However I am not so sure that all lieutenant governors follow the same practice as does the one in Manitoba.
I say that an item couched in these terms, which provides for expenses while travelling- which seems all right-but also for this business of entertainment and hospitality, raises a question mark which I do not think should be hung over the lieutenant governors of the provinces in this country. If there is a disposition on the part of the House of Commons-and I am against it-but if there is a disposition to increase the amount of money to be paid to lieutenant governors, then let the government do it by means of a change in the statute, but not in this way.
I have taken the trouble to read not only item 658 before us, as it appears in these supplementary estimates for the fiscal year which closes at midnight tonight, but I have also read the corresponding item in the estimates for the fiscal year beginning tomorrow. I am somewhat concerned by the fact that that corresponding item does not contain half as much detail as does the one before us.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will help my hon. friend in that connection. When the item to which he refers comes up in the main estimates 1 will move, or someone on my behalf, to have the language of this item substituted for that appearing in the main estimates now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister. I am glad to know that that will be done.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, get on with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right; hon. members want to get on with it. I am prepared to let a

decision be reached. I am opposed to the item, and I therefore move:
That this item be reduced to one dollar.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, you want a vote, eh?


Mr. MacDougall:: You can't buy much juice with one buck, Stanley.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Before this item was placed in the estimates, I brought it to the attention of the leaders of the various groups, because it was felt that under present conditions there were onerous obligations of this kind that lieutenant governors had to incur in order properly to discharge their functions.
It may be that some day the provinces will come to the conclusion that they will prefer to have the function of opening and closing sessions and assenting to bills discharged by chief justices, and abolish the position of lieutenant governor. But it did not seem to us at this time that that was the mood of the Canadian people. We have felt that, so long as the function is maintained as part of our constitution, it would not be desirable that it be one available only to persons who could, out of their own resources, provide the services that have to be rendered to the public.
It was felt that it was proper for a lieutenant governor to visit the province where he carried out his functions-and we know they do that. We know that it does stimulate the interest of the people in this constitutional, monarchical form of government. It was felt that here an allowance should be provided which might or might not be used by a lieutenant governor. He is not going to be asked to produce the stubs of his tickets or vouchers of that kind, but he will have to submit accounts for expenditures incurred in discharging his functions.
The hon. gentleman says the amount of hospitality might not be commensurate with the size of the population. Well, it might not be exactly proportionate to the population, but both the travelling and the hospitality would be more extensive in the provinces where there are more people than they would be elsewhere; and it was felt that this provision would make it easier for men who do not have the wealth to provide these services out of their own resources to accept the responsibility of representing the sovereign in their respective provinces.
As to whether it should be done by amending the Salaries Act, there has been no change in this regard since that which was made under Sir John A. Macdonald in 1872. At confederation lieutenant governors were provided with a salary equal to twice that of the prime minister. A change was made in the salaries both of the ministers and of the
31, 1952	975
Supply-Lieutenant Governors lieutenant governors in 1872-73. At that time the salaries of the lieutenant governors were set at what they are today, while the salary of the prime minister was set at $8,000 and that of the other ministers at $7,000. Two changes have been made since then in the salaries of the ministers, one in 1907 and the other in 1920, but none since 1873 in the salaries of the lieutenant governors.


Mr. McLure:: Except in Prince Edward Island.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Prince Edward Island was raised to $8,000 only in 1949. It had continued at $7,000 from 1873. This is not an increase in salary. This is something under which the lieutenant governor may be reimbursed amounts expended for travelling or for entertainment in the discharge of their duties, up to the limit mentioned. As long as the office is to continue it is not proper that it should be one that can be occupied only by those who have both the ability and the willingness to provide these services out of their own private funds.


Major James William Coldwell: It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister did inform me, at least, and I think probably the leaders of the other parties that this was to be put in the estimates, but as far as I am concerned I did not say I approved of it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, no; I am not suggesting there was any approval. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to suggest there was something that had not been disclosed because the minister had said there was nothing new in these supplementary estimates, whilst I, before the item was placed in the estimates, notified the leaders of the various groups that it was the intention of the government to recommend such a vote to parliament.


Major James William Coldwell: But there was no commitment.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no commitment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But it was not improper to put it in the final supplementaries, because it was understood it would be.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I suggest that at least the timing of this item is most unfortunate. I remind the Minister of Finance and the house of something he said in his budget last April 10. I want to read this one sentence, at page 1800 of Hansard for last year:
The necessities of defence now require that our expenditure for all other purposes should be reduced . . .
Surely if that is so this is not a very good type of expenditure to bring before the
978	HOUSE OF
Supply-Lieutenant Governors people of Canada tonight. The amount proposed, $21,500 is not significant; but does it not indicate to parliament that we are not getting very far in cutting down nonessential expenditures? I do not think the taxpayers of Canada, who are being called upon to submit to a budget approximating $5 billion this year, are going to approve of expenditures of this kind for hospitality. I believe if a Gallup poll were taken right across this country 95 per cent of the taxpayers would be opposed to it. Some years ago my own province abolished the official residence, and I am quite sure the government would be pleased if there were no lieutenant governor at all and the chief justice performed the various functions required. I suggest to the government that if they did away with these posts altogether and let the chief justices carry on they could save about $225,000 in salaries and expenses. For the government to propose an expenditure of this kind tonight I say is almost scandalous.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The reason for bringing it forward at this time is that on the occasion of the royal visit it was brought forcibly to the attention of the Canadian public that there were expenses of this kind that it was proper and dignified for the Canadian people to provide.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Prime Minister has presented a very persuasive argument in support of this item. I only regret that this argument was not presented when the item first came up. But I put it to the Prime Minister that there is still the question of the way this is being done. This is not the first time this has happened today; and I ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be fairer to the house if this were brought in not at the tail end of the supplementary estimates on the last day of the year, when we are in a hurry to get things done, but rather in the ordinary course as an amendment to the statute. I am quite sure no one in this house wishes to be cheese-paring or niggardly in dealing with the representative of the queen, but I do venture to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be fairer to this house to have this done not in this indirect way but in the direct way.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If it were done in the direct way, Mr. Chairman, there would be at least six occasions for debate upon it. There would be the resolution stage, the three readings of the bill and so on. If we were to attempt to do all these little things by means of bills requiring a resolution, we would not be able to have one session per year as the constitution requires; it would take several years to have a session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am amazed that the Prime Minister should seriously tell the house that things are being done in this way to avoid the recognized procedure of bringing in bills and putting them through the stages that are required by the rules of this house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is merely an item that has to be voted by the house to cover some expenditures, and the regular way to do that is by an item in the estimates. The difference is that it will have to be voted every time it is to be paid, while if we amended the statute it would then become a charge upon the consolidated revenue fund. That is the only difference. This is to cover something which we regard-perhaps we may be mistaken-as something properly to be covered out of public funds, that is to say these necessary travelling and hospitality expenses that have to be incurred by gentlemen who are appointed by the federal government and for whom by the constitution the federal government is responsible.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 81.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
563. Compensation for animals slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; and additional compensation in conformity with the terms of the act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease-further amount required, $665,000.
James Arthur Ross: This item was the first called on Friday, and it stood over because the minister and his assistant were not in the house at that time. During the evening the minister came into the house and made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I have had an opportunity to read over the debates of this afternoon. On a number of occasions reference was made to the fact that neither I nor my assistant was here. My assistant went home yesterday sick. He is in bed sick at home. That is the only reason he is not here. This afternoon at four o'clock I was presented with the report of the board of Regina which is making decisions on what money should be paid to the individual farmers, the complete report, and I spent the afternoon going over that report. The work is not completed simply because I had to come into the house tonight and sit here and wait for this item. X have been waiting here now for it for an hour and a half.
Mr. Chairman, when the minister first came in my colleague the member for Greenwood suggested that we might then discuss the item. The Minister of Finance said, no, we would proceed with the list and deal with this item at some later time.

Then after that I was surprised to hear over the radio an announcement of a meeting that had taken place at Ilderton, Ontario, on March 28. The announcement was as follows:
Official announcement of a government floor price for beef cattle can be expected within a week, Robert McCubbin, parliamentary assistant to agriculture minister Gardiner said today.
Mr. McCubbin told a meeting of Middlesex beef cattle producers they could expect a price something in relation to the Chicago market.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I presume the hon. member is making these remarks now only incidentally to reaching the item which is before the committee. If he does not come to it soon, I shall have to declare him out of order.


James Arthur Ross: All this is directly the outcome of the foot-and-mouth disease mentioned in this item. The announcement went on to state:
The Middlesex M.P. also predicted the U.S. embargo against Canadian cattle would be lifted September 1.
This is the outcome of foot-and-mouth disease, Mr. Chairman, and that is the purpose of this supplementary vote.
I also have a very interesting article in the last issue of the Manitoba Co-operator entitled "Ten provinces, eleven problems." It has to do with the manner in which this nation has been vulcanized by provincial embargoes following the outbreak of this foot-and-mouth disease. I expressed disappointment when my own province, along with other provinces, imposed these embargoes. Upon studying the matter since then, I rather sympathize with the provincial officials because they were not given the proper leadership by the federal Department of Agriculture. This view has been expressed by the officials in our own Manitoba department.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As I follow the remarks of the hon. member, they have nothing to do with compensation, and that is the subject matter of this item. It has nothing to do with the embargoes which have been imposed by the provinces.


James Arthur Ross: I am going to deal with the matter of compensation, but may I remind you, Mr. Chairman, and I know you realize it as well as any member in the house, that compensation for the herds destroyed is a very small portion of the total loss which the cattle producers of this nation are called upon to bear as a result of the outbreak of this disease. It has far-reaching repercussions.
However, the point about which I desired to ask the minister on Friday had to do with a point he covered in his statement. He said
S up p ly-Agriculture
he had received a report from the board at Regina as to the individual payments. Having said on the orders of the day that he would make a complete statement as soon as he had these results from the board, is the minister in a position to tell us the basis upon which compensation is paid for these herds? That is what this item is for. What was the top price paid per animal, and the average price paid to those who had their stock destroyed? Since the minister is having a conference with these provincial officials within the next two or three days, and since we will not be discussing agricultural estimates until after Easter, the minister should make a broad statement giving a lead to the cattle producers of this nation. This is a $2 billion industry, and it could have an adverse effect upon the whole economy of this nation. We are fortunate in that we have never had an outbreak of the disease until this year. The Minister of Finance said that all these supplementary estimates cover matters that have been discussed on other occasions, but this is something new that has never been discussed in any previous session of parliament. We were only informed about the disease shortly before the opening of parliament, and the first three days of the session were devoted entirely to a discussion of this outbreak. It is a very important matter. Will the minister make a statement now and tell us what the basis of settlement has been, as well as any further information he might have as to price floors for beef which have been requested by the various provincial governments, including Manitoba. I think such a statement is due to the beef producers of this dominion, and I hope the minister will make it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I shall be out of order, too, if I refer to the first few remarks of the hon. member for Souris. I feel, however, that I should be permitted to make one or two comments. It has been suggested that my statement that my assistant was home sick was riot correct.


James Arthur Ross: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was no necessity for saying anything, then, if you did not mean that. The fact is that my assistant, like many other members of the house, had the 'flu this week. He went home with the 'flu. Of course, I do not follow him around to see whether or not he gets out of bed a little earlier than he expected, or whether he undertakes to go to a meeting even when he is sick. I have done that before, and I know the hon. member for Souris has.


James Arthur Ross: So have I.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no question that he was sick when he left here. There is no question he did go home because he was sick.
I am told by those sitting behind me that he is in bed today. If he got up out of bed yesterday in order to attend the meeting, I suppose he did what many of us do. I do not think it is necessary to say anything more than that with regard to the matter. All the members of the chamber know the hon. member for Middlesex West very well, and they know that he is not pretending to be sick at a time when he is not sick.
As to the settlement that has been made, I do not think it is possible for me to go into all of the details and I very much doubt if the hon. member expected me to go into all of the detail.


James Arthur Ross: No. I said that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think if I give the total figures it will be as far as I can go at the present time. The total amount which these accounts total up to is $311,449.14. The total value of the animals under the act itself is $242,512.10.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is the Animal
Contagious Diseases Act. The total amount under the bill there is $68,939.02. I would call attention to the fact that these are the amounts for the animals alone, not for feed or any other allowances that may be made. It is only for the animals. I am not in a position to go into detail further than that because after all the board that was set up at Regina was a board to make recommendations to the minister, and the minister made recommendations to the government. The recommendations made to the minister are unanimous. As the committee knows, there were three members put on the committee:	one representing the department
itself; one representing farmers in general in the area; and one representing the Department of Finance. Then there were four individuals appointed, two of them being employees of the government and two of them being representatives of farmers. These four men examined the different herds and made reports to the board, and the members of the board were unanimous in their decision. There was no difference of opinion among them at all. They made a unanimous recommendation with regard to every case and with regard to the total. I received those on Friday, as I indicated. I went over them all and had my staff go over them. We made a recommendation to the government that that be accepted It was accepted by the government today and is being returned to the board at Regina with the suggestion that the

matter be reviewed, in view of the fact that agreement has been reached, and payments be arranged for. That is the position at which we are at the moment.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, the total amount of the estimate in relation to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak is $500,000. I contend that this $500,000 should be considered as merely a token payment from the government on account of this national emergency. I believe that the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, the loss of the American market valued at $121 million last year, with embargoes placed on trade between the provinces, amounts to a national emergency.
The people of Canada, particularly the producers who are most affected, expect the government and parliament to treat them fairly and generously. We have been faced with other national emergencies in the past such as the Fraser valley flood, the Winnipeg flood, and the fires at Rimouski and Cabano, Quebec. Those were considered to be national emergencies and they were treated as such. In my opinion the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak should also be considered a national emergency. One could not determine that it was being considered as a national emergency by the government, judging from the size of this estimate. The supplementary estimates that were brought down in this house to deal with the Winnipeg flood amounted to some $13,500,000. I was glad to support those estimates. I feel that this estimate is only a small part of the amount the government should be paying because of the serious consequences of the present outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease. Since the debate on this item took place, the size of the area affected within the boundaries that have been set up has been greatly increased. The quarantined area amounted to some 2,500 square miles, but as I calculate the size of the quarantined area plus the buffer area, the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak now directly affects farmers living in an area of some 18,000 square miles. The other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question as to whether the government was planning to allocate the market fairly amongst producers and the minister made particular reference to the producers within the quarantined area. The minister said this, as reported at page 709 of Hansard:
The only control of that kind which is in effect-
I had mentioned a quota on the marketing of livestock.
-has to do with the quarantined area and the buffer area; and any arrangements which it has been necessary to make have been agreed to internally. There is no difficulty there at all. The stock that is coming on the market is being marketed and the price level to consumers is satisfactory. Up to the moment we have had less difficulty there than anywhere else in Canada.

I do not know where the minister is getting his information on the marketing situation within the quarantined area and the buffer area; but as the letters coming to me point out, the market in that area is almost nonexistent; and with respect to any that exists, the products must be used within that area.
I have here a letter from a young farmer at Weyburn. A few lines of it read as follows-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member should disclose the source of his quotation.


Hazen Robert Argue: The name of the man who wrote the letter is Robert May of Weyburn. Someone says to me that I do not need to give the name. I am sure this young farmer will have no objection to having his name on the record. In this letter he had been writing about his own personal situation as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He had pointed out that he was unable to market his hogs, that his sows were farrowing and that his barn was becoming greatly overcrowded. He says this:
Along with the overcrowding of pigs, the same situation is developing in cattle. X have bulls for spring sale in late March which cannot be disposed of except within the buffer zone. My spring calf crop of ten to fifteen calves ax-e due to start coming April 3. Here too I will be overcrowded.
To show that he for one at least does not agree with the minister that there is no difficulty in that area, he says this:
I beg of you to draw to the attention of Mr. Gardiner the complete lack of a market outlet. This is a most serious situation, and although it affects a relatively small area, it still merits an immediate remedy on the part of the authorities.
Certainly in my opinion, at least, it is incorrect to say that there is no marketing difficulty within that buffer and quarantined area. There are marketing difficulties outside that area, but the marketing difficulties within that area are much worse, because the livestock products within that area must be consumed by local people, and the market, because of that, is very limited. I know that the minister has been giving the matter of this outbreak serious consideration. I know that, because a conference of provincial ministers of agriculture has been called in Ottawa; but the Minister of Agriculture has been saying a lot of things outside of parliament that I have been attempting to get him to say in parliament, or else to deny that he has said them. In the Leader-Post of Monday, March 24, there is a report by the Ottawa staff correspondent which says that the possibility of fixing a floor price for livestock had not been considered by the cabinet. Two
Supply-Agriculture
days later in that same newspaper there is a statement that a program is being evolved. It says:
It is expected, however, that it will involve the agricultural prices support board administering the prices support board program with the agriculture products board handling the actual operation of the program.
According to the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, March 26, the Minister of Agriculture said to the Kiwanis club in Ottawa that the federal plan now is under preparation for submission to the provincial representatives. The article goes on:
Mr. Gardiner said the United States embargo, resulting from the outbreak, is creating a surplus of beef in Canada, and that a price stabilization program may have to be maintained as long as the United States embargo remained in force.
Following that statement in the press, I asked the minister on Thursday, March 27, whether these statements were correct, and what the government's policy was in relation thereto. The minister replied, as reported at page 840 of Hansard:
What I said to the Kiwanis club in Ottawa the day before yesterday was correct; but it was not necessarily what my hon. friend says it was.
Still the minister did not tell us the government's policy. He is still leaving the agricultural producers of Canada wholly in the dark. He makes a statement that the government has a policy that is about to be brought forth, that would stabilize prices. According to the press, and according to the radio, his parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Middlesex West, announced on Saturday that legislation covering floor prices would be published during the present week.
Well, I think it is time that the Minister of Agriculture told us in this house what the government's policy is in regard to floor prices. Either the government is going to bring in floor prices or it is not. The minister should not be making statements outside the house, as well as his parliamentary assistant, in relation to a possible program to stabilize floor prices, unless he is prepared to tell parliament whether these reports are correct, and what the floor price will be.
I for one certainly hope that there will be a floor price. For the government to bring down an estimate now of some $500,000, or about 1/500 of the total of the supplementary estimates, is not a realistic figure, and is not a program that will deal adequately with this emergency.
I should like to inform the house of some of the statements made by responsible agricultural organizations in Canada in relation to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The first document I should like to quote from is a pamphlet put out by the Canadian

Supply-Agriculture
Federation of Agriculture entitled: "Farmers meet the Cabinet". On page 5 I find this:


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, you have already ruled on the point but 1 would suggest that you do so again. This estimate reads:
Compensation for animals slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; and additional compensation in conformity with the terms of the act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease-further amount required.
There is no mention that this item has to do with settling the problems that my hon. friend is discussing. The item is only for the purpose of paying for these animals and paying for tools or buildings, or something of that kind, destroyed as a result of the orders under Bill No. 7.


Mr. Wright:: Before you rule, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that that is just exactly what the hon. member for Assinilboila is arguing. He is arguing that this is entirely inadequate.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has nothing to do with what he is talking about.


Percy Ellis Wright: Surely when the minister brings in a vote the committee has a right to argue as to whether it is adequate or not. That is what the hon. member for Assiniboia is doing. He is pointing out that this vote is inadequate to serve the purpose for which it is intended.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing to indicate that this vote has anything to do with the matters about which my hon. friend is speaking. If these things are to be done, and if any money is required, it will not be taken care of by this vote.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is what we are arguing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, and therefore you should not be arguing it on this vote at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you rule, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that it is almost a month now since parliament discussed the foot-and-mouth outbreak. I am sure that since that time the Minister of Agriculture has received a great many representations from agricultural organizations across the country, relating to the subject of foot-and-mouth disease and to the government's action of paying certain compensation in relation thereto. The agricultural committee will not be meeting until after the Easter recess. This is the only opportunity we have had for a month, and it will possibly be the only opportunity which we shall have for almost another month, to bring to the attention of the minister the thoughts of the farmers in relation to this emergency. I shall bow to whatever ruling you may make, Mr. Chairman, but because of the seriousness of the

situation and because of the representations that all of us have received from such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, the wheat pool organization and others, I feel the minister should allow us to make our representations to him before this item is passed.


John Horne Blackmore: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word in support of the position that the hon. member for Assiniboia is taking. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, but this matter is dreadfully important to the people all through the areas I represent. Just as an example, I should like to read a telegram which I received just a day or so ago.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. What the hon. member is about to read certainly has no bearing on the point of order upon which I am about to rule. If he wants to speak to the point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture I will listen to him.


John Horne Blackmore: The important point is just as the hon. member for Assiniboia is making. The situation is completely chaotic in respect of prices all through the area that I represent. This is largely due to the fact that there has been no definite announcement by the government as to whether any money is going to be set aside to aid in the maintenance of floor prices. The feed lots are full and before long cattle will have to be marketed and if some provision is not made the losses will simply be disastrous all through that area.
This telegram sets forth a condition which four thousand members of an organization concentrated in Lethbridge realize exists. They are making a protest against the failure to deal with it. It looks to me as though this telegram certainly has a bearing on the general question.
I grant that what the minister has said is true, that no provision is made in this particular item for the maintenance of floor prices. But I maintain that that provision ought to be in this item. The fact that it is not there constitutes a condemnation of the government's indifference in dealing with this problem. I think you can call it only indifference because certainly the matter of floor prices under beef, hogs and all these various commodities which are affected by this foot-and-mouth disease constitutes a serious part of the responsibility of the government at this time.
I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I certainly protest against the fact that no

opportunity has been given for an adequate discussion of this serious matter, a matter of which I think the ordinary member does not realize the seriousness.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only reason I rose on the point of order is that the hon. member who was speaking was not trying to get the kind of information which is now being asked for. The hon. member was making a speech which I think he will agree, as well as all those who were listening to him, was a good political speech. I can make a good political speech if necessary. But that is not going to get the kind of information that is being asked for. If hon. members want information and ask for it I am not going to insist upon a ruling being given that we must stick absolutely to the letter of this vote. But if we are going to start out on a political rampage, I do not intend to join in it tonight unless I have to. If I have to it will only be because it has been ruled that I am not in order in what I have said.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the government doing to support prices?


George Alexander Cruickshank: On the point of order, I disagree completely with the way in which this problem was handled in the past. It has cost me a lot of money and it has cost every farmer in my riding a lot of money.


John Lambert Gibson: You can stand it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Therefore I want to ask a question on this point of order.


Mr. Cardiff:: If the hon. member is speaking on the point of order he is not supposed to ask a question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Has every provision been made, which I doubt, to prevent the spread of this disease which is ruining the dairy farmers of the Fraser valley?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member is not speaking on the point of order, he is asking a question of the minister. I think I have heard enough from the parties interested in this matter to be able to make a ruling at this time. I thought I had made a proper ruling when I interrupted the hon. member for Souris. When I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia deal with a similar extraneous question I thought that in all fairness to the hon. member for Souris I should stop him.
I have read over the item and I see that it provides for compensation in connection with the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Act for the Control and Extirpation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, which we passed in this house some time ago. I sent for a copy
Supply-Agriculture
of that act which I had just received when the minister raised his point of order. I think the point of order raised by the minister is well taken because this compensation has to do with the slaughter of animals and articles destroyed.
If hon. members wish to discuss the wide problems which have been created by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, if it is to be a debate similar to the one which we had at the opening of the session, then unanimous consent will have to be given. Hon. members will realize that at this point I am restricted by the rules and I must insist that standing order 58 be adhered to. Part 2 of this standing order reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Therefore any discussion at this point must relate to compensation to be paid under the two acts referred to.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must remind hon. members that my ruling is not debatable. If the hon. member wishes to appeal it, he may do so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to speak on the point of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The point of order has just been settled by my ruling.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Canada Packers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. You have pointed out that this item has been placed in the estimates as a result of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Act for the Control and Extirpation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. This item covers all the money that parliament has so far been called upon to vote as a result of the outbreak of this disease.
I should like to know how much money is being paid to farmers for animals destroyed, and for feed, fodder, buildings or any other articles covered by this act which may have been destroyed. How many animals is the $311,000 in payment of? How many head of cattle? How many head of hogs? How many horses? How many poultry? How many sheep? How many other animals?


An hon. Member:: Gophers.


Hazen Robert Argue: What representations have been received by the minister in regard to compensation being paid? Do farmers say it is adequate? I would like to know the average payment made per head of cattle slaughtered. I think that single bit of information will

Supply-Agriculture
give hon. members some idea as to the generosity or otherwise of the present act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The items destroyed are:
Cattle Swine . Sheep Goats Poultry Eggs ..
1,061
97
1,666
13,272
That is covered by the amount of $311,449.14.


Hazen Robert Argue: How much of that $311,000 is being paid in connection with the slaughter of cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: On the list I have it is not separated into cattle, sheep and hogs; but the figures pretty well indicate that the amount is very small for anything else but cattle. There is only one goat, 97 sheep and 127 swine.


Mr. Charlton:: What is the price of the goat?


James Garfield Gardiner: He belonged to the Rough-riders, I think, so he was worth something.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: It is not hard to figure out what was paid for it when there was only one.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not want to get into the position of answering what individual animals brought at this stage, because, as I said, this settlement has been sent back to the committee at Regina to be dealt with finally.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: We are not asking for the name, but for the average price.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not got it, so I could not give it in any case. The greater part is for the thousand cattle.


James Arthur Ross: The minister has said that this has been finalized, approved by the government and sent back. Would he say what was allowed as compensation for purebred cattle destroyed, per head?


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say, without mentioning names at all, that the only one I heard, myself, over the radio, was where an individual got $56 more than he said his herd was worth.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was at least one at $700. Then there were others at $600, and quite a number at about $500. I think the amounts compare reasonably with the prices that are usually obtained.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How much was paid to the packing companies?-and I do not want to offend their poor names, although I could call them by name. How much was paid to the packing companies, and how much to the farmers? Surely that information is available. If it is not, fire two more.


James Garfield Gardiner: One packing house-and I do not know whether I should mention the name of the packing house-but the largest amount to any packing house is $3,357.20.


Percy Ellis Wright: For how many head of cattle?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute; what about the next packing house?


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, the other one did not have any. They did not have the disease in their plant at all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then, that is the total paid to packing plants. How many head would that be?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figure here as to the number.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Could you get it?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was very small. Yes, I could get it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Now, what was paid to the farmers, and for how many head?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not hear the question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is the total amount paid to the farmers?


James Garfield Gardiner: It runs all the way from $29.28 up to $54,000 per farmer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The question I asked was as to the total amount paid to the packers, and the total number of head of stock. Then I asked the same question with respect to the farmers-the total amount per head, and the total compensation.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If the minister has that information, surely he has the rest.


James Arthur Ross: I think the minister should give the figure. He has said it has been finalized and sent back. Surely he can give it now. I am not asking for the names, but he could give the figure that they have recommended as payments for purebred cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: It runs all the way from $300, up; I do not recall any figure higher than $700.


James Arthur Ross: On purebred cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, surely that is available. If it is not, it should be.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether it should be or not; but it would take considerable dividing in order to get it. If you want to take each individual farmer, and divide the number of livestock that he had- cattle, pigs and chickens-into the total amount he got, of course you can obtain the figure. But that is not in existence at the present time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As I understand it cattle, pigs and chickens are all taken into it. I thought this was foot-and-mouth disease. What I am trying to get at is this, that we were hoodwinked in British Columbia because of inefficiency in connection with the Newcastle disease, and we are not going to have the same inefficiency in the foot-and-mouth disease. I have asked how many cattle were paid for to the stockyards or the packing companies-the total amount-and also how much was paid to the farmers, and the number of cattle involved. If that information is not available it just proves my argument as to the inefficiency of certain officials. I would like to have an answer.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is a Liberal government.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, it is not; it is inefficient officials.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend would listen to the answers to the questions which have already been given, and pay attention to what is going on in the house, he would not need to ask questions. I have already answered his question three times, and I do not think I should be asked to answer it again.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I take exception to that remark, and I will answer it. I did not intend to get into this; but when I am told to pay attention-and in the light of the fact that I lost more money, personally, through the inefficiency of officials, than any one of those officials ever owned in his life- I say that when I lost that money, personally, and the minister then tells me that I am not paying attention, I resent it very much. I ask for an answer, and if he cannot give it, it just proves-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will sit down for nobody. Every dairy farmer in the Fraser valley lost money in this, and I say that if the minister's officials cannot answer, then there is inefficiency somewhere. I have asked a question as to how much was paid to the packing companies, and how many head of cattle were paid for. Then I asked how much was paid to the farmers, and how many stock. Surely the minister has an answer-and I want to know what it is.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I have already said that I can get that answer, but I have not got it. I can send out and get it, however. But I do not think the answer, in the form in which it is sought, is going to be very helpful to anyone. However, if the hon. member insists upon having it, then I will get it, although it may take two or three hours to get it out in the form he is asking. If he insists I shall try to get the average each
Supply-Agriculture
farmer got for his livestock of different kinds. But I do not know that that information would be very helpful even after we got it.
The facts given were to this effect, that there were 1,061 head of cattle; and it is obvious that out of that number there would be very few contained in the $3,357.20, which was obtained by a packing plant.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is that last figure?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is $3,357.20. Then, if you take the average price of steers at around $300, it works out to about ten steers. However, it might be twelve, or some other figure close to that. It would be approximately that number. Now, that is out of 1,061; and the remainder of the 1,061 belonged to the farmers. They were slaughtered, and the intention is to pay for them. Practically all the swine, if not all, would belong to farmers, and the same with the sheep. As I stated before the one goat belonged to the Rough-riders football team.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How many swine?
Knowing the parliamentary assistant to the Regina football team we can appreciate that joke; but how many swine?


James Garfield Gardiner: 127.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If my memory serves me correctly the minister said some 78 head were shot at the abattoirs. Now he says there were only about ten. I cannot say exactly where that is in Hansard, but I remember the minister making that statement. Now we are voting $3,000, which would represent only ten or twelve head.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am very sorry; my hon. friend is correct. My eyes were not following a straight course across this page. I apologize to my hon. friend from Fraser Valley, the total amount that Burns got was $21,308.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am going to be rather fussy about this, in order that the record may be kept straight. The minister said he apologized to the hon. member, and I want it clear that he meant the hon. member for Fraser Valley, because I knew what I was talking about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know why the minister should make any mystery about, what the people have been paid for the animals that have been slaughtered. He started by saying he could give us this bulk figure of $311,000, or something like that; then a little later we were told that $700 had been paid, as he remembered it, as the top price for a purebred animal that was slaughtered. I would ask the minister if it

Supply-Agriculture
is not a fact that the farmers out there If the minister would just make a note of whose stock was slaughtered have already that and be prepared to answer the question been told what they are going to get, or later, I have one other matter. The minis-what it has been recommended they are to ter said some $248,000 was paid under the get, and the minister has indicated contagious diseases act and $63,000 under that the recommendations are going through, the foot-and-mouth legislation we passed is that not a fact?	about a month ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: The four inspectors we appointed interviewed the individuals; and I think without exception the individuals discussed the matter with the board in its office. I believe there is a general understanding as to the position, but the final figure was not referred back to the individuals until it was first referred to Ottawa. Now that has been done, we have agreed with their findings and the whole list is being sent back to Regina for final consideration. I would not like to make an announcement here with regard to individual cases which may be changed slightly, though they are not likely to be greatly changed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think anyone is asking the minister to say what Mr. Jones or Mr. Brown or anyone else got for his animals. My whole point was that I see no reason for making such a mystery about the figures, without mentioning names. In answer to my question as to whether the farmers had been told what they were going to get, in effect the minister said they had been told they would be likely to get a certain amount, at any rate, and that is more or less what they are getting. So I see no reason to keep those amounts secret, as long as we do not say Bill Jones or somebody else got $300. I think quite a bit of time would be saved if the figures asked for were given.
It would appear from the figures the minister has given us on 1,061 cattle that the average price paid was in the neighbourhood of $300 or a little less. That, of course, would include grade cattle, purebred cattle, and I suppose a certain number of calves. My information is that generally speaking the farmers out there were not too dissatisfied with the prices they were told they were likely to get for those animals which were being slaughtered. However, I was also told they were very dissatisfied with the prices they had received for the hogs or pigs which were slaughtered. I would like the minister to tell us the highest price paid for any pigs that were slaughtered, and the average price paid for those swine. From what I have been able to learn it would annear that the people who had nigs destroyed got a very poor deal.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was $242,510 under the contagious diseases act and $68,939.02 under the other legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That gave rise to a question in my mind, because I believe under the contagious diseases act the maximum that can be paid for a purebred animal is $100 and for a grade animal $40, plus the value of the carcass. Apparently most of this money has been paid under the contagious diseases act.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might correct my hon. friend-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let me finish, then you can answer all these questions. I was just wondering on what basis this had been arrived at, or how it was worked out.


James Garfield Gardiner: The settlements under the contagious diseases act are made under the amendment of two years ago, which makes it possible to settle on the basis of the commercial value of the animal. The figure of $242,510.12 is the commercial value of the animals; and I may say all the individuals signed the statement in that case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the individuals signed the statement that was compiled to indicate the value of those animals, I presume indicating their agreement that this was the commercial value. The $68,939.02 is in addition to the commercial value.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is really to pay for purebred cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is to pay the amount which was allowed under the legislation we passed at the beginning of the session, to give additional value. I think I mentioned the case of a cow with calf, and things of that kind which should be considered.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then I wonder if I could get the information with regard to the compensation paid for swine.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have sent out to try to get it. I have been over it myself, but I do not want to try to recite any of these matters from memory. I am not sure that I can get it. It was in council this afternoon, and it is pretty hard to get into the office of council at this time of nieht. So while I am trying to get it I am not sure I can do so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wonder if I might intervene. I do not know whether it is fair to ask the sense of the committee, but I have asked the other place to suspend their sitting in the hope that it might be possible for us to send them a supply bill this evening. If the general feeling is that we have to carry on here until eleven o'clock in order to get the information that is wanted, I think I had better suggest to the other place that they adjourn until tomorrow, though I would hope that would not be necessary.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Can't they stay until ten o'clock at night?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not taken up too much time, so perhaps my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience. I suggest this with some diffidence; I do not want to indicate that hon. members should not ask for any information they require, but it may be possible that some information could be obtained by letter or in other ways. In any case we are in the hands of the house. If it is the general feeling that there is no prospect of concluding within say the next half or three-quarters of an hour I think we had better suggest to Their Honours that they come back tomorrow, though the house is aware of what that involves.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that if the Minister of Finance will use his persuasive qualities on the Minister of Agriculture to get him to answer some of these questions, it will not take very long.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The Minister of Finance asked for the sense of the house, and the member for Lake Centre has given his own impression as to the length of the debate. Perhaps we could hear from the other parties, if they wish to express their opinion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are three items after this one.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the leader of the C.C.F. party or the Social Credit party wish to make a statement on the subject?


Major James William Coldwell: If the information which has been requested by hon. members of the house is given expeditiously, we should finish in three-quarters of an hour. I think it depends upon the mood of the house, and I cannot tell what the mood of the house is going to be.


John Horne Blackmore: We have taken a great deal of care to co-operate with the government in getting these estimates through. We believe it is very important to get them through. We certainly want to see them go through. I do not know whether we can do that, but the Social Credit group will continue to cooperate.
Supply-Agriculture


John George Diefenbaker: During a general discussion on the subject the minister will recall that he stated the basis of compensation would be the compensation given to Mr. H. Beatty. The information that the house has been receiving has been in bulk rather than individualized. I think that the persons affected agreed among themselves as to the general basis of compensation. I believe a meeting was held in Regina on March 12, attended by twenty-one farmers, all of whom had had their animals slaughtered. They submitted to the minister a suggested basis of settlement, predicated on acceptance by the evaluators of the valuations determined by them at this meeting. The meeting was held at the Champs hotel in Regina, and without going into particulars as to the individuals who made the motions in question, the farmers agreed that the replacement value of a good dairy cow should be at least $450 plus bonus; for a two-year-old dairy heifer in calf, it should be $350 plus bonus; for a yearling dairy heifer it should be $250 plus bonus; purebred beef breeding cows should be $500 plus bonus; purebred beef heifers in calf should be $375 plus bonus and that grade beef breeding cows should be $450 plus bonus. As I understand it they placed before the minister their ideas of the prices that would be acceptable to all of those whose cattle had been destroyed in pursuance of action taken by the government to extirpate this disease.
For some reason or another the minister seems to have shrouded this whole matter in mystery, to use the expression of the member for Calgary East. We are not asking for particulars concerning the individuals in question, although the minister gave his assurance that the Beatty determination would be the basis from which other valuations would take place.
I should like to ask the minister, were the valuations based in general uniformly upon the recommendations made at that meeting of the farmers on March 12? Secondly, I think there should be some particulars regarding the $200,000 item of compensation in conformity with the act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease. How much crop was destroyed or ordered to be destroyed? How much feed was destroyed, and what was the total amount of compensation to the farmers for the destruction of their feed, straw and infected barns as well as any granaries that were ordered to be destroyed? At the moment, Mr. Chairman, we are simply asked to vote an amount without having any conception of the measuring stick or the nature of the measure of compensation that is to be granted. It is all very well for the minister to say divide 1,061 into the amount of compensation allowed, but that reveals

Supply-Agriculture
nothing at all. One does not know how many animals were purebred cows, how many were calves and the like. You could even include the goat in that, and say that was one of the animals and therefore arrive at a basis of valuation.
I cannot understand why the minister is having so much difficulty in answering a simple question. Was there a uniform basis of evaluation for these various classifications to which I have referred? Is the basis of evaluation generally that suggested by this committee of farmers? At the moment, I am not asking for individual cases, although there is no reason why this house should not have that information, because whenever there is money distributed we are always in a position to ask how much went to each person and the basis of evaluation. We are not doing that at the moment. We are not endeavouring in any way to play one farmer against another. We do have a right to know that there is a basis of evaluation with equality, so far as is practicable, and that is being followed in the awards made. When replying,
I asked the minister to give the committee the facts as to how this $200,000 item is made up, particularly how many bushels of feed will be destroyed or has been destroyed in order to meet this situation, and also the basis of evaluation for the cattle.
After all, the information that I received from the farmers is that they were under the impression they were asked to give a basis of evaluation, which they did. They are asking whether or not that was followed, because certainly they wish to have a uniform system of compensation followed, and that each and every one of them be paid as uniformly as possible, due regard being had for the difference in value that must necessarily exist as between the different herds.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, as to the main part of the question having to do with the division of this money in order to make certain payments, the only one that has been determined up to the moment is the value of the livestock. No values have yet been placed on the feed. No values have been placed on the buildings that may have to be destroyed, if any, and no valuation has been placed on anything of that kind. The valuations have been placed on the livestock, and that is what the farmers themselves wanted to get settled first. There is some discussion among them as to whether you should trim down the stack, take off the outside and destroy that, or whether it would not pay everybody better to burn the whole stack. Questions of that kind have not yet been determined. When they are determined, we

shall then be able to arrive at some conclusion as to what the values are. But those valuations have not been made yet, and I therefore cannot give them. It is only a matter of more or less accident that we have the other table before us at this time. What I mean is that if it had been two days ago or three days ago that we had been considering the question, we would not have had any information on that matter and I would have simply had to say: We figure that the total amount in this estimate will cover the whole cost. It will be seen by examining the figures alone, along with the figures I have given, that we are not far away from the estimate in what has been the total amount that will be required. As to the method by which the values of the animals were determined, it is true that there was this suggestion made-at the request, I think, of the board-by the individuals who were concerned as to what they themselves thought the value of their animals was.


John George Diefenbaker: At the meeting?


James Garfield Gardiner: At the meeting that was referred to. As a matter of fact, I have sent out for the same letter. It just appeared on my desk this evening since I had left the house at six o'clock. I read it over rather hurriedly. In that letter it was stated that this proposal was made. They say that what actually happened was this. They had that information; they had the advice of the four inspectors, two of whom represented stock producers and the other two of whom were men that we considered most valuable in connection with an exploration of that kind, one being Mr. Jack Byers whom I think most western members know even if eastern members do not. He was one of the two men from our staff who was appointed. These four men and the board of three took the representations made by these farmers as to what the values ought to be, went over them all, then set a scale that they themselves thought was a reasonable one to be followed, and they followed that scale throughout and made the valuations which are included in this table. I hardly expect that hon. members would want them recited here tonight. I do not think it would be wise to recite the list even if I had it here. I have sent out to try to get a copy, but I have some doubt as to whether I should recite the figures under the circumstances existing at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Why is that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Simply because the matter has not been finally settled with the individuals. To start throwing around here with regard to individual animals amounts which might be questioned and might be discussed

still further on appeal to the board is something which I do not think it is fair to discuss in that way. At present I think we have got to be satisfied to say: Well, everybody is unanimous in so far as the government representation is concerned and we hope that the farmers too will be agreeable when they know exactly what the amount is. But that information has not got to them yet, and I hesitate to put it out here on the floor of the house.
If hon. members would be satisfied with my reading the list of figures, without taking them in the order they are in the paper, as to what farmers would get if they accepted what is here, I am quite ready to read the list, which will give some idea. But I am not in a position to state what the numbers of animals are, from this sheet. As I said a few moments ago, in order to get this matter considered at all this afternoon, I sent the only table I had to council. That table was considered in council this afternoon and passed upon, and the document is still in the offices of council. I have not been able to get it tonight since we started dealing with the matter. Had we reached it this afternoon, I might have been able to get it.


John George Diefenbaker: Were there no carbon copies?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; there were no carbon copies. The document itself came here on Friday, as I indicated; and when we got through going over it we sent the copy to council to have them deal with it finally and it was passed today. That is, the government decided that they were favourable to the amounts which had been set out, without any question as to any of them. I might just read these without going down them regularly, because if they were put on Hansard regularly, as they are in alphabetical order, it would be a simple matter for someone to start to figure out what was what, and where, and to discuss it accordingly. The amount with regard to one farmer is $12,056.40; another has $13,190; another has $350; another has $320; another has $10,655; another has $13,065; another has $6,270; another one has $20,298; another has $54,525 and still another has $1,944.40. One farmer has $82. Another has $305. Another has $1,533.80.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, I do not think these figures mean anything to us. If we cannot have any numbers in connection with them, what difference does it make what the amounts are? We might as well lump the whole thing into one and then pass it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are only two herds, I think, that have what you would call purebred cattle. When we were discussing
Supply-Agriculture
it at the beginning, we were wrong in taking newspaper reports that the one herd was a show herd. I have since made an examination into the facts. I understand that the records at both Regina and Saskatoon have been examined for five years back and that, according to these, this herd was not in the show. A lot of rumours go round in connection with these things. They were, however, fairly valuable animals and have been valued accordingly. I quite agree with my hon. friend. I do not think that this kind of information is of much help, and I do not think that, if we had more detailed information, it would be of much help either.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If we had the number of cattle, we would have some idea.


Percy Ellis Wright: A few moments ago the minister said that they used a certain scale for determining the value of the animals. If the minister would place that scale on the record, I would think it would give us some information. The reading out of a bunch of figures indicating that somebody whom we do not know received a certain amount of money for cattle, the number of which we do not know, does not mean a *thing either to this committee or to anybody else. It would be of interest to this committee and to a good many other people to know the scale used by the government in determining the values which the minister said he had a few minutes ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have it now. We finally dug it up. I have the full statement, with everybody on it. I can give you some of the values. I do not think it is wise to use names.


Percy Ellis Wright: Nobody is asking for that to be done.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We want to know the number of cattle and the amounts.


James Garfield Gardiner: Three head, one year old, female, $310. One veal calf, male, $80. Four year old, female, grade Shorthorn, fair type, good condition, $320.


Joseph Warner Murphy: In calf or not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Supply-Agriculture


Joseph Warner Murphy: She must have had horns on.


James Garfield Gardiner: Another seven-year-old
female, $445, out of the same herd. Here is a bull, $750.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is too cheap.


James Garfield Gardiner: Here is one black grade steer, one-year-old, $135.


Major James William Coldwell: Are we really getting any information? What was asked for was a scale, the basis upon which these values were decided. I do not think this is giving us any real information that can help the committee to decide whether this appropriation is a proper one or not.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: He is not a cattle man.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can go on and give you all kinds of cattle and the prices you get for them. That is the only way you can get a scale out of this.


Major James William Coldwell: There are pages there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Was this arrived at by the board?


John Alpheus Charlton: I am rather disappointed, Mr. Chairman. The minister has had plenty of opportunity now to make a more or less progress report on this disease. I think that all those on the opposition side at least will agree with me that that was what was expected of the minister tonight. It has been almost a month since we have had an opportunity to ask any questions of the minister, or have the minister make a report in this House of Commons, although he has made lots of them outside the house, on the conditions that exist in the quarantined area and in the buffer zone. I will give the minister one more opportunity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is good of you. Thank you; you are generous.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, I can stand here for quite a while if necessary.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Hold up the payments, too.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member for Regina City made some remarks a few days ago. The only thing I want to say in regard to those remarks, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. McCusker:: I made no remarks in this debate.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You didn't say much when you did talk.


John Alpheus Charlton: The only thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman-and the hon. member for Regina City does not need to get anxious about what I shall say about him because I
[Mr. Gardiner.}
do not intend to make any personal remarks about him-the only thing I want to say is that people who are standing in glass houses should not throw stones. They had better step outside first. If a man cannot make a speech without making personal attacks on various members of the opposition-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. If the hon. member wishes to rise on a matter of privilege I will listen to him; otherwise he will have to speak about the item, and the item relates to compensation to be paid under the two acts.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I just said it was unfortunate that the speech did not contain more than simply a personal attack on the few of us in the opposition who thought it important enough to criticize the government on that occasion. I want to quote only one piece from the Regina Leader-Post that the hon. member quoted on that occasion, and which I think the Minister of Agriculture should take to heart now. It might save a considerable amount of questioning if he would do here what he was supposed to have done there, as quoted in the Regina Leader-Post of March 11, 1952. I quote a part of it:
Agricultural Minister Gardiner and the federal men with him laid all the cards on the table face up. That is the way it should have been; in fact, the air was so much clearer at the end of the conference than at the beginning that it was possible to find spirited support for a resolution expressing confidence that everything within reason is being done by government authorities to control and suppress the disease.
I once more ask the minister if he will at this time give us a progress report on what has happened in that quarantined area.


James Garfield Gardiner: Someone behind me has said that I would be out of order if I did so, and I think probably I would. That is the ruling that you gave earlier in this discussion, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to say to the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth that what he has just stated is a very clear indication of the difference between this house and some other places. Everything that I said in Regina, which was referred to in the terms mentioned, was a repetition of what I said in this house in the first three days when we were discussing this question before; just a repetition of what was said, nothing more than that. As a matter of fact, I read from Hansard what I was saying, and they considered that I had placed the cards on the table face up, and they were the people who knew all about it. The men who were concerned, who were going to lose their livestock, or had already lost them, were there, and all of the different officials who had taken part

in fighting the disease were there, and that was their judgment of what happened at that meeting. That was the answer that was given to them, and they accepted it and went off to see that the matter was carried out that was indicated, and it has been carried out down to now on that basis.
If the committee will bear with me I would just like to say that, in spite of all that has been said, there never has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease anywhere in the world that was picked up as fast as this one was, and there never has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease anywhere in the world that was wiped out as fast as this one has been, and entirely put under the ground.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You hope.


James Garfield Gardiner: One has to keep his fingers crossed when he makes a statement of that kind because, after all, we have only gone three weeks since we have had any new cases of the disease, and we have some hope that we will not have another outbreak. I get a wire every morning from those who are working on the job, and I always wonder what is going to be in the wire. Up until now the wire has been: "No new outbreaks of the disease." It comes in every morning regularly, and each time it comes I am better satisfied with what has happened up to date. The summary, the only summary I can give, is that all animals that had the disease, all the animals that came in contact with any animals that had the disease, all of the produce, such as eggs, and chickens that had been on the places where the disease has been have been destroyed. They are now buried underground under a liberal layer of lime and the disease is being destroyed. That is the position up to date.
We have made a complete survey of all the farms along Wascana creek and have found that quite a number of herds that did take the disease had been drinking out of of the stream during the wintertime, but some of those that had been drinking out of the stream did not take the disease. We have all the facts with regard to that.
All these facts can be given before the committee when it meets after the Easter holidays. Everything related to them will be available to members of the committee and I think that is the right time to get it. Just to satisfy the curiosity of those who want to know, in spite of the fact that I should not be discussing it, I would say that this statement which I made and which was referred to earlier in the debate and was ruled out of order-therefore I presume this will be out of
Supply-Agriculture
order also-this statement, delivered to the Kiwanis clubs, which I said was a correct statement, said this:
We are considering ways and means of taking care of this situation.
That was the fact that our market in Canada has not been and never will be able to take care of the amount of beef that is likely to go on the market. My statement continued:
We are considering ways and means of taking care of this situation. We are asking farmers to retain stock on the grass this summer rather than rush it on the market. We are exploring possible markets. We are hoping to make this possible through arrangements which will so stabilize returns to farmers as to assure credits and at the same time protect consumers against high costs.
We hope to have a plan ready for submission to representatives of provincial departments of agriculture by a week from tomorrow, April 2.
April 2 is the day after tomorrow. We have plans ready to be presented to the provinces, at least suggested plans, but we cannot adopt anything in connection with the program until we have the co-operation of the provinces, which we expect to get the day after tomorrow and the day following that. Until we have had this discussion with the provinces it would be not only improper but impossible for me to come here and lay down plans which we say we are going to put into effect and then call the provinces and ask them what they think about what we have announced to the house. We do not intend to do that.
We have said to the provinces right from the beginning, "this is your problem as well as ours; we require your co-operation in putting into effect any plan that may be established." Just as soon as we have had discussions with the provinces, and they will take place the day after tomorrow, we will proceed to complete our plans in accordance with those discussions and the arrangements entered into.
I cannot give you that tonight. I will not be able to give it earlier than Friday, and I am not sure that I will be able to do it then. It will depend upon the discussions that we have on Wednesday and Thursday.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe I have a copy of the statement which the Minister of Agriculture has in his hand. It is headed:
Speech by Right Honourable James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, to joint meeting of Kiwanis Clubs of Ottawa, at luncheon, Coliseum, Tuesday, March 25, 1952.
That is a prepared statement. The minister does not say that he is presenting to the conference a policy to stabilize beef prices. We all know the minister and we appreciate that he can make an hour's speech with very few notes. This prepared statement covers two pages and I am sure it could be read into the

Supply-Agriculture
record in about three minutes. I do not suppose the Minister of Agriculture went to this joint meeting of Kiwanis clubs and talked to them for only three or four minutes.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, there was no reporter at the meeting. The only document which the press had is the one which my hon. friend has. I have not seen any report in any press except what was based upon this statement. That is the only statement the press has and that is the one that appeared right across the country. When a reporter gets a statement like that he does not always put it out in those exact words. Quite often he rewrites it in his own way. I have not seen any report in the press anywhere that expresses any idea that is not in that statement. I think that that is a correct record of what was said and a correct record of what was reported to have been said.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was about to suggest to the minister that he should do in the committee what he says he did in Regina and turn the cards face up. The agricultural producers of Canada want to know if the government is going to stabilize beef prices.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, it is not very often that I come to the defence of the Minister of Agriculture because he does not need anybody to come to his defence, but I seem to have started all this trouble and I am going to suggest to my hon. friends that I represent a farm riding just as they do and as we have had an explanation-


An hon. Member:: The point of order?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The point of order is that the minister was out of order and so were you. Let us pass the item and help our fellow farmers. You are both out of order as it had nothing to do with this.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Several hon. members, especially on the opposition side, asked the Minister of Agriculture to give a progress report on the situation in the quarantined area. Of course whatever discussion resulted from that was declared to be out of order. At the request of the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, who said that he was giving the minister another opportunity, the minister finally consented and did give a progress report. While doing that he said repeatedly that he was out of order, but he added that if the committee would bear with him he would carry on. At that particular moment I heard the hon. member for Greenwood say that he could do it with unanimous consent. I do not know if that remark reached the minister, but I heard it.

Since no hon. member raised a point of order I took it that the minister had unanimous consent to give that progress report. I think it is the sense of the committee that that progress report was welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Assiniboia now wishes to elaborate on that and bring in the question of the stabilization of floor prices and other matters. I cannot forget that we are now discussing item 563 which relates to compensation to be granted under two acts. If the hon. member has unanimous consent of the committee to-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: -discuss other agricultural matters, then I am in the hands of the committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let it go.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Unless the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the committee to discuss matters outside of the question of compensation I must ask him to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I shall confine my remarks to the matter of compensation. I do want to add that the only conclusion I can come to from all that the minister has said tonight is that the government has at this moment absolutely no intention of placing a floor under beef prices.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That has nothing to do with it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has given us a report of the amounts of money that have been paid to farmers as compensation for livestock slaughtered, and if I remember correctly an amount of $21,000 was paid to a packing plant. The minister did not mention the name, but that would be the Burns Company. I would like to know how many head of cattle and hogs, or whatever it was, the item covered. Then, when the minister answers, I should like to ask him one additional question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is that a guarantee-only one?


An hon. Member:: Do you think the farmers are getting too much?


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Refer it to the committee on agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are 49 steers, two years old; one female, a cow six years old. The first steers to which I have referred were two years old and in good condition. I now refer to 24 steers, which comprise the next group, and which were in fair condition, of a

fair type. Then, there were 57 lambs, one year old; 11 sheep, four years old. That is the full number of animals taken out of the pens of the packing plants and destroyed.
For the first 49 steers, at two years old, the amount is $13,160. For the six-year old cow, $239.60; for the 24 steers, fair type, $6,548.75; for the 57 lambs at $20 each, $1,140; and for the 11 sheep, four years old, at $20 each, $220.


Hazen Robert Argue: My further question is this: Were the prices paid to the packing plant paid on the same scale as the compensation to the farmers? Has the minister in front of him any record to show what the Burns company paid for those animals? I am trying to get at this; is this the cost price to Burns, or did they make money out of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Burns company, and other packing houses that were paid, were paid on the basis of the commercial value of the animals. There was no extra value allowed to them. But I can give the hon. member one or two figures to indicate the way in which other settlements were made.
Here is one: A one-year old red heifer which was valued under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act at $260. Then there was $40 added to that, as an increased allowance over and above the commercial value of the animal. And, just to indicate somewhat the difference between a heifer and a steer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: -which would probably be somewhat the same value-


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is a difference, though.


James Garfield Gardiner: -for the two-year old steers, the value was $345. The extra allowance on the steer was only $15, while on the heifer it was $40. One can see the reason for it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I shall speak for only one
moment. I do wish to say, in view of what the minister has said, that, because of the speed with which the disease has been controlled in the quarantined area, the department is to be congratulated. But I do wish to add this, that the minister should not feel too encouraged over these results. I am not trying to paint a black picture, but I must point out that this is perhaps the coldest country in which the disease has ever appeared before. That has been the good luck of the minister, and has enabled the department to confine the disease to the quarantined area.
In this connection I should like to quote briefly from one of the best technical works on this subject. I refer to that of Hutyra and
Supply-Agriculture
Marek, "The Pathology and Therapeutics of the Diseases of Domestic Animals", where they say:
The disease spreads with particular rapidity during warm weather, while in the winter it does not occur so extensively. With the appearance of warm weather, however, it frequently gains a wide prevalence, as a result of the greater traffic in cattle.
I sincerely hope that the disease may be kept within the area. I will say this, so far as loss is concerned, that there are probably many thousands of farmers in eastern Canada, and in the far west, who have lost twice as much as any of those within the quarantined area. I have sympathy with what has been said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
I hope, in all sincerity, that the minister is right when he says that the disease is controlled. I just offer this word of warning, because I would not want too much optimism until after the frost leaves the ground.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I hope I may be excused for moving up a couple of seats. However, I was interested in this matter from the practical point of view of a farmer, rather than from what I heard while listening in the house this evening. From what has been said by the Minister of Agriculture I can assure the house and the people of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Yes, I can assure the house and the people of Canada that the government has not paid these people too much money for the cattle.


James Arthur Ross: How about the goat?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We have not had that figure yet. I heard the minister say something about cutting off the outside haystacks and straw piles. For the amount it would take by way of labour to cut off the sides of those stacks and piles, I think the chance being taken of spreading the disease would warrant setting fire to that hay and straw. I would also point out that they should take precautions at Wascana creek in the spring.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to refer briefly to one or two comments made during the discussion of this item. In the light of what has been said, as a member from British Columbia, where the headquarters of the British Columbia beef cattle growers association is located, I would urge the minister that when the provincial authorities come here the day after tomorrow he ought not to place any undue pressure upon the representatives from British Columbia for a removal at too early a date of the embargo on the movement of cattle into that province.

Supply-Agriculture


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. On two previous occasions I have ruled out any discussion which is not relevant to the item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the reason for your ruling, and I shall try not to transgress. I would direct your attention to the fact that I am referring to something said earlier in the discussion. I merely wanted to make the point. There is a good deal more I could say, but if Your Honour feels-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I know the hon. member is referring to something said earlier in this debate. He is probably referring to the report made to the minister-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; to what was said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw on Friday in discussing this item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: On Friday this item was permitted to stand, by unanimous consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But before that a number of remarks were made. However, I think I have made the point I wished to make and if you think a discussion of the embargo would contravene your ruling I shall be content, provided it is on the record-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that I take issue entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, which under the circumstances I considered quite uncalled for. I think this thing can be left to the good sense and discretion of the provinces, which I know want to remove the embargo just as soon as possible.


Harry Oliver White: I have been waiting patiently to say a word on this question. When the legislation was first introduced I pointed out that under the contagious diseases act every farmer whose cattle were condemned because of tuberculosis knew exactly what he would receive, and knew exactly what the formula would be. Now nobody knows. One or two have referred to the fact that the cards are being placed on the table face down, and no doubt that has added to the confusion here tonight. Now everyone is wondering what kind of deal his neighbour got, and consequently no one is going to be satisfied. But enough of that. I think perhaps the minister has read what I said on Friday with respect to payment for animals destroyed in Oxford county. Would he be prepared to tell us now how many have been paid for, and what payment is going to be made for those that died before diagnosis was made?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Oxford did take up that matter with me a day or two ago, and I think I told him a cheque had

already gone forward to the farmer whose cattle were slaughtered, for the amount available to him under the contagious diseases act. I must apologize to somebody, I don't know whom, but we did put through an item we expected would appear in these estimates to cover the extra amount he might obtain. For some unknown reason it did not turn up in the estimates; it was dropped somewhere along the road, not intentionally but inadvertently. He is being notified that an item will be put in the regular supplementaries later, but in the meantime he is being paid the full amount he could draw under the contagious diseases act which, as in all these cases I have referred to, will be the greater part of the payment.


Harry Oliver White: Then I understand that 25 head have been or will be paid for within a day or two, and a further item will be put in the next supplementary estimates to pay for the others?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before the item carries I have a question to ask on behalf of the hon. member for Cumberland, who could not be here this evening. In the details there is reference to poultry and poultry products. I take it those amounts are being paid in regard to premises infected by the hoof-and-mouth disease, and that they have no reference to premises which have been infected with Newcastle disease in other parts of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; amounts for poultry destroyed because of Newcastle disease are provided in here as well.


George Clyde Nowlan: They are in here also?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. Higgins:: Does that mean Newcastle disease cannot be discussed now? The hon. member for Cumberland also left me a little chore to do for him, and I want to know if it is in order now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It does not appear to me that the compensation referred to here has anything to do with animals destroyed because of Newcastle disease.


Mr. Murray (Oxford):: Mention has been made tonight of Oxford county, and I am sure all hon. members want to give credit where credit is due relative to the loss sustained by the farmer in my county. I would like to say that I journeyed with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture to this farm. There we saw the animals, and the parliamentary assistant made a detailed investigation. I feel that through his efforts the cause of the farmer has been brought to the attention of the government,

and in the absence of the parliamentary assistant this evening 1 want to give him credit for his efforts on behalf of that farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I believe the minister now has before him the information I requested earlier as to the compensation paid for pigs, and I wonder if he could give that to us now.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will see if I can find some of them in this list. Here is one outfit that had nine head of feeder hogs. A value of $225 was placed on them and an extra $55 was paid, making a total of $280. Here is a brood sow, due in three weeks; $120 was paid for her. I think that is a pretty reasonable payment. Here is another sow, eight months old; $80 was paid for her.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Were these purebred?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not think so. I believe they are just the ordinary run of sows. Here is a purebred sow-it does not give her age

$80. I think those are reasonable payments for those pigs.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not going to delay the item for more than half a minute, but I understood the minister to say it included payments for Newcastle disease. I am not going to stress that matter now because I realize that this is a supplementary item for the past year and nothing we can say will change it one bit. But I support what the hon. member for Cumberland has said, and I point out to the right hon. gentleman that when his estimates are before us later on we will raise this matter again. I suggest that he consult with his colleague the Minister of Justice, because I think obviously there is special ground for compensation, which we must deal with at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
568. To provide assistance to the apple growers in British Columbia on their 1950 apple crop, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council. $1,200,000.
Mr. Anderson:: Before these items pass I would like to make an observation. We in Ontario have no objection to these amounts going to British Columbia and Nova Scotia for the 1950 apple crop. But we would like this house to know that Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and incidentally Norfolk also have apple marketing problems and sometimes need assistance too. I do not think these payments should continue to be made until the matter is fully reviewed and the other provinces are consulted by the dominion-provincial conferences or otherwise. We should also like the assurance of the minister that this will be done, if and when this matter comes up again.
Ways and Means


James Garfield Gardiner: I have already announced that if there is going to be any further consideration given at any time to further compensation of any kind, then we must deal with all the provinces.


Mr. Herridge:: With reference to the remarks of the member who spoke previously, I should like to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for his point of view. The growers of British Columbia are very pleased with this assistance towards their cost of production for 1952. In conclusion, I want to say that I believe we have to view this problem from the national point of view. We will not have it solved to our satisfaction until we have planned production related to tree removal policy across this country.


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

['That is what I was thinking, Mr. Speaker.']
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1952, the following sum be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
The sum of $246,564,313 being the amount of each of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates (2) and (3) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952, as set forth in the resolutions concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 94, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1952.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1952, the following sum be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:\nThe sum of $246,564,313 being the amount of each of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates (2) and (3) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952, as set forth in the resolutions concurred in this day in the committee of supply.']
Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of the bill.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
On section 3-$21,500 granted for 1951-52.
['By leave.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
On schedule B.
['On division.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
['On division.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


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



Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 16, for the relief of Catherine Vaughan Troy Campbell.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of other divorce bills on the order paper. Would the house agree to my reading all of them at one time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker. The reason I offered no objection to the one that has been passed is that that is one of the few bills in connection with which we have the evidence. We do not have the evidence for the next bill. There are two or three others on the order paper for which the evidence is in, and if the member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) wishes to move only those, it is all right. If he wishes to move the others, I should like the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the debate.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: The evidence for all these bills is before the house, and I believe we should proceed with them in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall not go through that argument again. The evidence may have been tabled, but it has not been distributed. I suggest if these bills are to be called they be called one at a time.


MARY MARGARET GRAHAM
Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 17, for the relief of Mary Margaret Graham.
(Mr. Knowles.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: I move that the debate on second reading of this bill be now adjourned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has not started, how can it be adjourned?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion? Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


BERNICE POMP GATES
Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 18, for the relief of Bernice	Pomp Gates, otherwise known as
Bernice Frank Gates.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to comment briefly on this bill. I have no intention of opposing this particular bill, because it is one of the five or six bills, the evidence of which I have received. It is an unfortunate case like all these unfortunate cases. I have read the evidence, much against my inclinations, because I think it is my duty so to do. Before we pass these bills I think we should certainly consider the evidence, and we should have an opportunity to consider the evidence. Somebody told me five minutes ago that he had found a copy of the evidence of this particular bill upon his desk. I suggest to you, sir, that we cannot carry on a debate on foot-and-mouth disease, and at the same time be studying evidence in divorce cases. I think it would be reasonable for one to get the evidence at least in the morning, or at least twenty-four hours before he has to consider the bill itself.
I do not feel so bad about this bill because it is an uncontested case. No children are involved. It has to do with a very young Jewish couple in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec. The only relief of course that these people can get is to bring the case to this house, and that is the way things have been done.
On the other hand, it is not the way that things have always been done, because in those very early divorce cases-I have looked into the matter-a good deal of time was spent upon them, and in one case it ran for one or two years. I suggest, sir, that the people who arranged this method of divorce certainly did not visualize these things coming in at the rate of 300, 400 and 500 a session. I think we have now reached the point where the task of our giving these things earnest consideration in this house is simply impossible. Therefore we have to make up our minds, in considering this among other bills, to do one or other of two things: either to go with the stream, to be blown along with the wind, to follow if you like, the path of least resistance, give no consideration to these things whatever and simply let them go through, or else we have to make some attempt to remove the consideration of these matters from this house.
55704-63J
Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is speaking now about the procedure on all divorce bills generally that are brought to this house. That is not in order at this time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the consideration of the bill itself and I shall only detain the house a moment. There is one thing about it that I did want to say, which I could have said equally about four of the other five bills of which we have the evidence, namely, that the investigators in this particular case, as in three of the other cases, or four out of the five, lied in regard to themselves and to what they were doing in order to obtain the evidence. Sir, I am not a lawyer. Perhaps lawyers are accustomed to this sort of thing in connection with the work they are doing, and see more of this sort of thing than I do, but to me it is a shocking thing.
In this particular case, sir, the investigator who interrupted these people said this, and I quote from the evidence:
I told him we were the housemen. I told him we had a complaint about room 101.
When I was speaking about a bill the other night I had the opportunity to say something of the same sort of thing. I might repeat that as a layman I would not be prepared to believe a man on his oath whom I could not believe when he did not take an oath. And yet I want to point out that it is only on the oath of the investigator in this particular case that the divorce will be granted, the oath of a man who lied when he was not under oath. However, as I said at the beginning, sir, since I have seen the evidence, since this case was uncontested, and since, if I can believe the investigator, which I would be loath to do, adultery was proven by the evidence, I have no intention of opposing the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


MARY MILDRED ANTOINETTE CASTONGUAY SMITHSON
Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 19, for the relief of Mary Mildred Antoinette Castonguay Smithson.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I was on my feet
a few moments ago, I referred to the fact that there were only a half dozen cases in connection with which the evidence was before us. I referred of course to the evidence actually being distributed. Since that time, indeed within the last two or three minutes, while my colleague from Saskatoon was speaking on the last bill, someone very kindly delivered to me copies of the evidence in connection with twenty more of these divorces.

Supply


Mr. Slick:: Read them before you go to bed.


Mr. Gaulhier (Porlneuf):: Bedtime stories.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To read these books of evidence in time to deal with the bill before us tonight would of course be impossible, but I have had time enough to go through the twenty and look at the names on the title pages. These twenty do not include the evidence for Bill No. 19, which is before us at this time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should not proceed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; eleven o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I was thinking, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the unanimous feeling of the house that we should continue tomorrow with the debate on the motion to go into supply, and in particular on external affairs. If that is completed, we will move that the Japanese peace treaty be confirmed, as set out in government notice of motion standing in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).


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

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
649.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the Civilian Government Employees (War) Compensation Order, P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act-further amount required, $5,100,000.
650.	To provide financial assistance after the thirty-first day of May, 1951, in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council, to unemployable veterans who are in receipt of pensions under the Pension Act for a disability which is a factor contributing to their unemployability; such financial assistance to be exempt from income tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act-further amount required, $215,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
651.	To provide for adjustment in the amounts paid to the imperial war graves commission for Canada's share of maintenance of war graves of world war 2, as previously provided for in Department of National Defence appropriations-further amount required, $530,000.
Terminable services-
652.	Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners-further amount required, $300,000.

[Stage Direction]
Citizenship and immigration-
653.	To authorize and provide for a continuing special account in the consolidated revenue fund, notwithstanding section 32 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to be known as the immigration revolving fund, from which interest-free loans may be made to immigrants, towards the cost of transportation to destination in Canada, including cost of meals en route, under conditions fixed from time to time by the governor in council; and to authorize the crediting to this special account of repayments by such immigrants and the readvancing of such moneys, and to extend and apply this authority to the amount of $3 million provided by vote 648, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1951, $6,000,000.
Defence Production-
654.	To authorize execution and performance of an agreement between Her Majesty and Polymer Corporation Limited by way of amendment to existing agreements between them: (a) to provide for the vesting in the name of the corporation of the title to real property, plant, business and other assets (subject to liabilities) heretofore operated by the corporation on behalf of Her Majesty; (b) to authorize the corporation to administer the said property, plant, business and other assets on behalf of Her Majesty, as between Her Majesty and the corporation, as if the corporation was the beneficial owner thereof; (c) to authorize acceptance by Her Majesty for the said property, plant, business, and other assets, and by way of accounting for and in satisfaction of all existing advances made by Her Majesty to the corporation of 1,999,966 shares of capital stock of the corporation, of debentures of the corporation of a principal amount of $8 million and the payment of $3 million in cash during April, 1951; and (d) to authorize accounting arrangements to be established by the corporation as if, as between Her Majesty and the corporation, the corporation were not an agent of Her Majesty, $37,999,966.
External Affairs-
655. To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged such advances and to which shall be credited expenditures made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees, the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed $600,000. Vote 566 of the Appropriation Act No. 4,	1951, is hereby repealed, $600,000.

[Stage Direction]
Atomic energy control board-
656.	To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, execution and performance of an agreement effective as of March 31, 1952, between the atomic energy control board on behalf of Her Majesty and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: (a) to provide, notwithstanding section 3 of the Atomic Energy Control Act, for the vesting in the name of the company of the title to real property, plant, business and other assets (subject to liabilities) constituting the Chalk River project to be operated by it on behalf of the atomic energy control board on behalf of Her Majesty; (b) to authorize the company to administer the said project on behalf of the atomic energy control board as agent of Her Majesty, as between Her Majesty, the board and the company, as if the company was the beneficial owner thereof; (c) to

authorize acceptance by Her Majesty of shares of capital stock of the company in return for the said assets; and (d) to authorize accounting arrangements to be established by the company as if, as between Her Majesty, the board and the company, the company were not an agent of Her Majesty or the board, $1.

[Stage Direction]
657.	To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged such advances and to which shall be credited expenditures made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees, the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed, $200,000.

[Stage Direction]
658.	To authorize, effective from January 1, 1952, and provide for annual expense allowances to the lieutenant governors of the provinces of Canada, to reimburse them for costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties, up to amounts of not less than $5,000 and not more than
Supply
$12,000 per annum in the case of any lieutenant governor and within those limits not more than an amount of $5,000 per annum plus $1,000 per annum for each 100,000 or fraction thereof by which the population of the province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $21,500.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production service-
Health of animals-
563. Compensation for animals slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; and additional compensation in conformity with the terms of the act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-disease-further amount required, $665,000.
Special-
567.	Major irrigation and water conservation projects in the prairie provinces-further amount required, $400,000.
568.	To provide assistance to the apple growers in British Columbia on their 1950 apple crop, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $1,200,000.
569.	To provide assistance to the apple growers in Nova Scotia on their 1950 apple crop, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $300,000.

﻿999
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 1, 1952