1952-06-02

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table the report of the combines investigation commissioner into the alleged combines in the manufacture, distribution and sale of mechanical rubber goods, tires and tubes, accessories and repair materials, rubber footwear, heels and soles and vulcanized rubber goods.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he is able to give the house any idea as to when the two volumes which he has tabled will be available for general distribution so that hon. members can study them?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As soon as possible, we hope. My hon. friend has only to look at their size to see that their reproduction is not a simple matter. We tried to provide enough to supply the press gallery, and we shall have copies for hon. members as soon as we possibly can.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Minister of
Justice whether any decision has been reached yet with regard to what action shall be taken in the light of the report that he has tabled today?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, Mr. Speaker. It requires a great deal of study, as this large volume indicates.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved:: That the petition of Ethel McCready Thomas for a bill of divorce presented on May 29, 1952, together with the report made thereon by the clerk of petitions on May 30, 1952, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable in relation to standing orders 92 and 93(3) (a) and (c).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Libby Levine Bloom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Shirley Israel Thau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Ralph Patrick Barker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Madeliene Kostick Glock.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Olive Myrtle Weston Rouet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of John William Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Marcelle Marchand Adams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Germaine Aubert Forest.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Betty Lauraine Conner Norell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Francoise Marguerite Beaudin Patrick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Albert Chevalier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Greta Mildred Duncan Croteau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Roland Lesage.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Leo Berco-vitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Joseph Raymond Demers.-Mr. Winkler.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	What are the names and values of each of the pieces of machinery which were returned from the workshops of the Canadian National Railways at St. Malo, Quebec city, to Riviere du Loup?
2.	When did such transfer take place?
3.	What are the names and the respective occupations of the employees of the Canadian National Railways who were transferred back from St. Malo, Quebec city, to Riviere du Loup?
4.	On what date did each of said transfers take place?
5.	What are the names and the values of each one of the pieces of machinery which were at the Canadian National Railways shops at Riviere du Loup (a) immediately after the transfer above referred to in paragraph 1 took place; (b) on May 1, 1952?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Following the acquisition of St. Malo shop by the Department of National Defence

Questions
in 1940 certain machinery was transferred to Riviere du Loup. From current records it is not possible to give the detailed information requested.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Current records do not contain the information necessary to answer this question.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	It is not the practice of the company to maintain historical records that would facilitate an answer to the first part of this question. Information as to present values is not available.



ARMY STORES INVESTIGATION


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Where is George Currie, C.A., who is conducting a shortage investigation in the armed forces, at the present date?
2.	Is he (a) on vacation, or (b) on duty in connection with any matter being investigated by the Department of National Defence?
3.	Was he accompanied by any person or persons on duty on the trip? If so, by whom?


Mr. Campney:: 1,	2 and 3. Mr. George Currie, C.A., is at present in England on business not connected with the investigation. Information in connection with the investigation is being collected by members of his staff.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have tenders been requested or asked for by the Department of National Defence, during the past six months for kit bags for the army, and chefs' caps for the armed forces?
2.	If so, what was the quantity to be tendered for in each case?
3.	Have the tenders of any tenderer been accepted? If so, what are the names of the successful tenderers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) I ask that this question stand, subject to an alteration to part 1, which would make part 1 read as follows:
Have tenders been called by the Department of Defence Production, during the past six months, for kit bags for the army, and for chefs' caps for the armed forces?
I understand that this matter has been discussed with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production and that that wording would be satisfactory and together with parts 2 and 3 as now worded, would produce the information desired.


Mr. Speaker:: Question stand.


Lionel Chevrier: Stand as amended.


Mr. Speaker:: As amended.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	Since 1923, what has been the total yearly amount of (a) advances and loans made; (b) guarantees given, by the government to the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Since that date, what amount of the debt of the Canadian National Railways has been written off by the Canadian government?
3.	Since 1923, what amounts have been spent in each province by the Canadian National (a) for the construction, maintenance and repair of the railway; (b) as capital expenditure for the construction, extension and installation of machinery in each of the erecting shops of the Canadian National?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Financing for the Canadian National Railways has in each year since 1923 received consideration and approval by the government and is recorded in the statutes.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	(a) The accounts of the Canadian National Railways are not maintained in a way which makes it possible to segregate expenditures in the tabulation requested, (b) To endeavour to give this information would involve an examination of accounting records for the past thirty years and this could not be undertaken by the existing staff of the railway.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION


Mr. Pouliot:: During each one of the last twenty years (a) how many sitting days after the opening of the session of parliament, and (b) how many sitting days before prorogation, was the annual civil service commission report laid before parliament?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest that, as a matter of order, this is not a question which should be answered. It asks for information which is as available to the hon. member as it is to anybody else and) is to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of each of the twenty years referred to in the question. I think that we should not be required to have these tabulations made when the information that is requested has been, at the proper time, made available to the house as recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of each session.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES


Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	How many parliamentary committees have held' sittings at the House of Commons during the present session?

2.	How many sittings have been held by each of the said committees?
3.	How many witnesses and experts have given evidence before each of the said committees?
4.	Were such witnesses and experts sworn? If so, what are their names and before what committees?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to this question, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it asks at this time questions about the committees of the house at this session. I think it is clearly the rule that no questions can be asked in the house about the proceedings in committees until the committees have reported. When they shall have reported, the information sought by the question will be found in the reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.
Questions



REQUESTS BY FARMERS FOR DUTCH IMMIGRANT LABOUR

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many farmers, by provinces, have requested Dutch immigrant families to assist in farming, during the last year?
2.	Of those requested, how many requests (a) have been filled; (b) are as yet unfilled?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1. Statistics maintained include only formal applications submitted and are classified by immigration districts. These statistics do not include informal requests made at local immigration offices.
District	Province of	Received	ApprovedAtlantic 	Nova Scotia and Newfoundland 	,.. 20	20Eastern 	
Quebec and New Brunswick	.. 91	90Central	... 2,813	2,674Western	and Alberta	.. . 581	541Pacific 	... 209	1933,714	3,518
2. (a) The number of Dutch farm families who have been brought into Canada and have been placed on farms is as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 23
Nova Scotia	 81
New Brunswick	 79
Quebec	 227
Ontario	 2,320
Manitoba	 239
Saskatchewan	 153
Alberta	 1,099
British Columbia	 202
4,423
(b) See answer to No. 1.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Argue:: For a copy of each order made under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, declaring a place in the province of Saskatchewan free from an infectious or contagious disease, between December 1, 1951, and February 15, 1952.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee
at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, among other things, that the Minister of Finance (a) shall release the Canadian National Railway Company from certain claims by Her Majesty in exchange for preferred stock of the company; (b) shall release the Canadian National Railway Company from certain other claims by Her Majesty in exchange for an obligation of the company in respect of which interest shall not be payable for a period of ten years commencing on January 1, 1952; (b) shall, out of the consolidated revenue fund, from time to time purchase additional preferred stock of the Canadian National Railway .Company to provide a portion of the money required for additions and betterments of the Canadian National Railways System; and (d) shall transfer to the Canadian National Railway Company all the shares of the Canadian National Railway securities trust that are held by him in exchange for no par value shares of the Canadian National Railway Company.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at

Gold Mining
the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, to increase certain rates of benefit under the act; to reduce the number of waiting days before the receipt of benefit; to extend the period of entitlement for supplementary benefits; and to make provision for certain administrative changes.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Gray  don@Peel: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there will be any implementing legislation to follow the resolution which appears on the order paper today, after this resolution has been carried?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of Slate for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that this resolution of approval of the protocol will require any implementing legislation.


Mr. Graydon:: Perhaps I should not be asking the question now, but in that case will this resolution go to the standing committee on external affairs for examination?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That could be done, Mr. Speaker; but I had hoped that we could deal in the house itself with the resolution of approval of this protocol.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
1952 and 1953
Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 242, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have just one thing to say on this matter. We had an extensive and, I think, worth-while debate on it last week, but I have one further remark to make on third reading. It is this. There will be no solution to the problem of Canadian gold mining without an increase in the price of gold. This can be done by two methods, namely by allowing the price of gold to increase through the operation of the free market or by joint international action by edict or governmental decree. I would hope that the

former would be the method taken, because it is the economically correct method. As I have pointed out, gold is becoming extremely scarce in world trade. This is a world danger.
We have seen this country, Mr. Speaker, set an example with regard to the international bank for reconstruction. We have taken courageous action in making our initial payment to this organization available for the purposes of the bank. I suggest that the bank's actions with regard to international trade have been very helpful and very constructive. Having taken this initial action with regard to the international bank for reconstruction, we have just completely paid up our $65 million, making our subscription to this organization complete. We have taken courageous action in freeing our dollar and abolishing exchange control. We have not, however, taken similar courageous action with regard to the international monetary fund. Until we are prepared to take that necessary and desirable courageous action with regard to gold trading with the international monetary fund there can be no solution to the Canadian gold problem.
I further submit, Mr. Speaker, that had we been prepared to take that courageous and forthright action we should have met with the same degree of international approbation that our action with regard to the international bank for reconstruction has brought us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister whether he is prepared to make any statement now on the subject of the policy of the Canadian government in regard to seeking an increase in the price of gold.


George Prudham: I have no further statement to make on this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will take a moment, then, to express regret that the government has no statement to make on this vitally important question. We are still dealing with a great national problem on a temporary stopgap basis. The measure that is before the house, while it must be supported by us all as far as it goes, is nevertheless nothing more than a stopgap temporary measure. I hope that before long the government is going to come to grips with this problem, and really show that it is seized of the importance of the problem and is going to make some resolute effort to persuade the United States government to increase the price that it is paying for Canadian gold, and to seek also remedial action, through the international monetary fund, to relieve the Canadian gold mining industry of some of the shackles that have been imposed upon it

as a result of the decisions of the international monetary fund to which the government of this country has been a party.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 194, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Powers administered to make regulations with approval of governor in council.


Mr. Green:: There is only one section to this bill. I wonder whether it could be called by the subsections?


The Chairman:: Is it agreeable?


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection.


Louis-René Beaudoin: On subsection 1: shall it carry?


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister making any statement at all?


Lionel Chevrier: I have already made a
general statement on the resolution, and I think a very complete statement on second reading of the bill. This bill has been sent to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where it received careful study and consideration. It has come back to the committee of the whole with one amendment. I do not think I can add anything more.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2, paragraph 5-Publication of zoning regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Subsection 2 of the bill adds five subsections to section 4 of the Aeronautics Act. Some question has arisen concerning two of these new subsections. One, which is numbered 9 in this present bill, provided that an applicant for compensation for damage resulting from these airport zoning regulations must commence proceedings within one year from the time the zoning regulations were filed in the land registry or other appropriate office. When the bill was given consideration by the committee, that period was changed from one year to two years, which I think is a great improvement. We are not quarrelling with that particular subsection, now that that change has been made. But 55704-176
Aeronautics Act
we are still very much worried about the new subsection 8, which is the one providing for compensation for damage resulting from these airport zoning regulations. If hon. members will refer to the subsection in question they will find that it reads as follows:
Every person whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation is entitled to recover from Her Majesty, as compensation, the amount, if any, by which the property was decreased in value by the enactment of the regulation, minus an amount equal to any increase in the value of the property that occurred after the claimant became the owner thereof and is attributable to the airport.
That means of course that a person who has suffered damage by reason of this zoning regulation having been passed can claim compensation for the decrease in value, but there has to be deducted from that compensation any increase in value of his or her property which occurred after he or she became owner of the property, and which is attributable to the airport. That would work out in this way. Suppose that damage caused by the zoning regulations amounts to $1,000. Then the owner of the property affected will not necessarily be entitled to get that sum of $1,000 from the crown, because the judge of the exchequer court, after determining that the damage is $1,000, would have to examine into other factors. First of all, he must decide whether the setting up of the airport in question increased the value of the property. Then he must decide whether the owner who is claiming the compensation got that property before or after the airport was built. If the property was acquired before the airport was built, and if there has been any increase in the value of his property by reason of the airport being built, then that amount of increase is deducted from the compensation. So that the owner of the property may very well find his thousand dollars wiped out completely by this string attached by the section with respect to the compensation. It should be pointed out that after this deduction has been made ini the damage payable because of the zoning regulations, then should the land itself be taken over by the government under the Exchequer Court Act, the same deduction can be made again. In other words, the increase in the value of the land by reason of the placing of the airport could be deducted from the amount a man would receive for his property. This would follow as a result of the provisions of section 50 of the Exchequer Court Act.
We believe this section is not properly worded. It is our feeling that, instead of deducting the amount by which the land was increased in value by reason of the airport, there should be deducted only such increase

Aeronautics Act
in value as is caused by the zoning regulations. Then an applicant who has proved that he has suffered damage would have deducted whatever increase in the value of the property resulted from the zoning regulations themselves, rather than mixing up the zoning regulations and the value of the property, as is done under the wording of the section as it now stands.
We suggest that the minister give further consideration to making a change accordingly in this subsection. The owner who is going to apply for compensation will have to go to the exchequer court, and that is an expensive procedure, as well as being cumbersome. I doubt whether many owners will be able even to get the compensation under this act to which they are entitled. It seems unfair that they should be handicapped by having the restriction contained in the last three lines of paragraph 8 in the bill, which reads-
-minus an amount equal to any increase in the value of the property that occurred after the claimant became the owner thereof and is attributable to the airport.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to raise my voice at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: So that there may be orderly discussion, do I understand that paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 have passed? The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was discussing paragraph 8, and I would assume the hon. member for Peel is now about to discuss the same subject.


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Subsection 2 of the bill
includes paragraphs 5,	6,	7,	8 and 9.
For that reason I have dealt with 8 and 9 because they are all in subsection 2.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may we pass all of them with the exception of 8 and 9?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that we shall consider subsection 2 of section 1, paragraph by paragraph?


Howard Charles Green: That is satisfactory to me.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Then, is subsection 2,
paragraph 5, agreed to?
Subsection 2, paragraph 5, agreed to.
Subsection 2, paragraphs 6 and 7, agreed to.
On subsection 2, paragraph 8-Compensation.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to state my position concerning this paragraph. However, what I had intended to say has been covered by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and I have no desire to repeat what he has said.

I placed my views on record in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, but I think some further observations would be in order at this time. As the minister knows, in the bill which was to have come before the house on a previous occasion, the question of compensation had not been accepted by the government. Upon review, compensation was restored to the bill, with the result that the bill became more acceptable to many who had thought that the matter of compensation would raise difficulties in the minds of those who were adjoining owners of properties.
My thought concerning the paragraph at this time is that I fear that what has been done has been to give with one hand and to take away with the other. I am concerned because I feel this might mean that the compensation that was to become payable after adjudication by the exchequer court, by virtue of the express paragraph in the subsection, may amount to very little. Compensation is the chief feature of the bill as it relates to the adjoining owners of land. I am concerned particularly because all the rights and all the money values that could be awarded to an owner adjoining an airport may be subtracted as a result of the minus feature in the section.
I suggest that on this ground the bill is defective. In addition to that the question of ownership arises, because the section says that from whatever may be given by virtue of a decrease in value of land, due to these regulations, there may be subtracted an amount equal to any increase in the value of the property occurring after a claimant becomes its owner.
I pointed this out in committee, and I do so again at this time by way of emphasis to the minister, in the hope that at some future time a correction can be made. However, I should think that it is not at this time too late to make the change. It seems to me the provision in the paragraph does discriminate between the owner who held the property when the airport was first installed, and the new owner who has owned the property within recent months. Certainly they are not being treated in the same way in this paragraph, as I see it.
It seems to me that in the paragraph there is a vast difference between the way we treat the man who has held the land for a long time and the one who has acquired it only a short time ago. I do not wish to repeat in their entirety the observations I made in the standing committee, but I would point out to the minister that the wording

of the last two sentences in paragraph 8 is in my opinion faulty in that it indicates that such compensation shall be-
-minus an amount equal to any increase in the value ol the property that occurred after the claimant became the owner thereof and is attributable to the airport.
I had hoped the standing committee would see fit to support me. However, they did not see eye to eye with my view, with the result that I lost the battle. It is not -the first time I have lost a battle in the House of Commons, so I do not feel bad about it. I think it would have been better if we omitted the words, "is attributable directly to the airport." As the minister knows, in some of these instances the value of land has not been increased just because there happens to be an airport there. The increase may be attributable to the fact that there are large installations of industry and manufacturing at that particular point. I have in mind at the moment the Malton airport where the A. V. Roe Company have a large aircraft manufacturing centre. That fact has attributed to the increase in value of land about the airport much more, if I may say so, than has the airport itself.
I think that distinction should be drawn so that the "minus" provision would not be so broad as it might perhaps be interpreted to be. I think that would carry out the design which all of us in the committee I believe had in mind, that it should be considered as being directly attributable to the airport.
I want to raise only one other point which I raised before. I would have hoped that the minister would give what weight he considers advisable at least to suggestions that are made with the design of making the legislation better than it is.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the previous speakers in objecting to the wording of this paragraph. I am quite sure the minister realizes the difficulty of drafting a paragraph that will satisfy the officials in the department and at the same time satisfy the members of the opposition. I think anyone reading this at first will certainly be puzzled when he comes to the word "minus". The phrase there is, "minus an amount equal to any increase in the value of the property". That would be minus an amount equal to any increase in value brought about by the creation of the airport.
It seems to me that there is no relation to the two things. We have airports now in existence and in the future we are going to have zoning regulations. As a result of those zoning regulations the theory is that damage may be done to property. If there were 55704-176i
Aeronautics Act
damage to property the owner would be entitled to compensation as a result of the zoning regulation.
But then the government says, "We are not finished, we must go back and see what if anything you got when the airport was constructed perhaps ten, fifteen or twenty years ago". It seems to me that that is mixing two things which should not be mixed up. For example, you might have two persons owning property, both being equally affected by the regulation. One man may have owned his property before the airport was built while the other man might be a recent purchaser. The first man would get compensation equal to the damage which his property had suffered as a result of the zoning regulation. But the other man would be asked when he had bought his property, and when he replied that he bought it since the airport had been built he would be told that his case was different, that he must take off part of the compensation he would get.


Mr. Murphy:: It is the other way around.


William Joseph Browne: The government is saying that any improvement which has occurred after that owner took over must be taken off if the increase in value is attributable to the airport. Is it not reasonable to assume that there will be discrimination as between the two owners? It is a very subtle paragraph, I suggest. I think the paragraph would be greatly improved by dropping all the words after the word "regulation" in the fifth line. The paragraph would then read:
Every person whose property is injuriously affected- by the operation of a zoning regulation is entitled to recover from Her Majesty, as compensation, the amount, if any, by which the property was decreased in value by the enactment of the regulation.
That would be sensible. If you take anything off, then it seems to me you are taking away from the common sense of the regulation. Surely a man is entitled to any damage done to his property by government legislation. That seems to be only just and equitable. But if you go back and inquire into the value of the property ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, and if any improvement in value has resulted as a result of the utilization of adjoining property by the government in the meantime, then I think you are doing that man an injustice.
I do not think there is very much more that can be said on this question. I suggest to the minister that he will be much happier and we will be much happier about the paragraph if the last few lines are dropped.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would feel much happier indeed if I could meet all

Aeronautics Act
the objections raised by my hon. friends on the other side, but I think their objections in so far as this clause is concerned are not well founded. I say that generally, and then I hope to be able to deal specifically with the objections they have raised.
I say that generally because, first, we have given careful consideration to the drafting of this section over a period of many months. Then I would remind my hon. friends on the other side that we are breaking new ground. To my knowledge compensation has never been paid in this country in connection with the zoning of airports or for that matter in connection with any other zoning restrictions.


William Joseph Browne: Zoning regulations of this kind.


Lionel Chevrier: Or of any other kind. No compensation is paid under municipal zoning regulations. When a municipal by-law is passed there is no provision for compensation because a man must build twenty feet from the street line or must erect a house having a value of $15,000 or $20,000. These restrictions are akin to the restrictions imposed by municipalities, and that is why I make the statement that this is a new field. I think we are entitled at least to a trial in order to see how it will work out.
Hon. members say that this is unfair because it gives with the one hand and takes away with the other. It does not provide any such thing, if you read the bill carefully, and I say this with all respect to those who have spoken. It has been suggested by an hon. member that if a person suffers damage to his property to the extent of $1,000, that $1,000 might be wiped out if the "minus" provision was applied. That is not a proper interpretation to put on the paragraph.
I would think that the proper interpretation to put on it is this. The moment we decide to zone an airport and pass a regulation we register a plan and the regulations which will indicate how the airport will be affected by the zoning that has been described in committee and here, that is, the horizontal zone limiting buildings to one hundred and fifty feet; the zone at the end of the flightway where buildings may go up one foot for every 50 feet out; and the zone on the side of the flightway where they can go up a foot for every 7 feet 'out.
Let me take the case quoted by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Supposing these zoning regulations affect 30 acres of a farm of 100 acres; roughly speaking, a little less than one-third of the farm is
affected and the "minus" would apply only to that one-third and not to the two-thirds as suggested by my hon. friend. In other words, what the regulation will apply to is the plan with the description which will be deposited in the registry office, which in that particular case would be the one-third. The "minus" will apply to the same portion of the land as will the "plus". For that reason I think the section is properly worded.
It has been suggested that there will be discrimination between owners of adjacent properties, the one who may have bought his farm a long time ago and the one who may have bought it recently. I do not see that any distinction is being made at all. If an original owner disposed of his land one or two months ago he benefited by the increase in the value of the farm just as an original owner will benefit proportionately in the increased value of the farm if affected by these regulations. I cannot see any distinction between adjacent owners, one who bought the day before yesterday and the other who has held his property for years. The one who bought the day before yesterday paid the increased value attributable to the airport. Therefore the original owner will lose absolutely nothing, and so far as the new purchaser is concerned, why should he gain by it? He has just purchased the land at the time the regulations are put into effect so there is no discrimination against him.
The question has also been raised that the word "directly" should be added in line 14, clause 8, so as to define the word "attributable" more accurately. I indicated in the committee that I had no objection to adding the word "directly", but counsel for the Department of Transport indicated that the word would make no difference because the court would have to take cognizance of what was attributable. The committee decided against that amendment, and in the face of their decision I cannot come forward and suggest that the word "directly" should be inserted now. I do not think I should do that.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Did you try
to persuade them to put it in?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not hear that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did you try
to persuade the committee to put it in?


Lionel Chevrier: I certainly indicated I would have no objection but the committee overruled me and I think I should stand by their decision.


Gordon Graydon: You and I may be right yet.

Aeronautics Act


Lionel Chevrier: Possibly. Then it has been suggested both in the committee and here today that a period should be placed after the word "regulation" and that the second half of clause 8 should be deleted. If one were to do that I think one would destroy the full intent and meaning of this clause. I say again that we gave this matter very careful consideration. I am not unmindful of the valuable suggestions that my hon. friends have made in an attempt to assist the government to strengthen this bill, but I would remind hon. members that the Department of Justice, as well as officials of the Department of Transport, gave the matter earnest consideration, and so did the cabinet. I must say in fairness that we considered it very carefully. Since it is new legislation why not give it a chance to operate? We would like to put it into effect in so far as the main transcontinental airports are concerned and then move out from there. I think we will find that it is not nearly as meaningless as has been suggested. Therefore my recommendation is that we give the legislation a trial. If it does not work out parliament will be sitting again and we will have an opportunity to change it if such a course is indicated.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not deal with the point I raised with respect to a subsequent expropriation. As I read the legislation, the position is that there is deducted from the amount for damage done to the man's property by the zoning regulation the amount of the increase in the value of the property brought about by the installation of the airport. Suppose the case has been fought out and that deduction has been made. Then two or three years later the department decides to expropriate the land, and there is the right under the Exchequer Court Act to make exactly the same deduction from the price paid to the owner of the property, in other words the amount by which his land was increased in value by the construction of the airport. How does the minister justify that position?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there is any anomaly there. If on account of these zoning restrictions a man receives X dollars less the amount by which that portion of his property affected by the easement has increased in value, then I cannot see why, if the department expropriates at a later date, the ordinary rules and regulations covering expropriation will not obtain. Surely the expropriation procedure will not in any way affect the compensation, payment of which is provided for here. I think there is a distinction between the two. If we have to expropriate we will expropriate all the
lands and buildings that have to be expropriated under the ordinary rules of the Exchequer Court Act, and if we have to zone we will zone under this regulation. I do not see how the one interferes with the other.


Howard Charles Green: Let me approach it in the other way. If the minister stepped in and expropriated a piece of land today there would be deducted from the amount of compensation paid for that land whatever increase in value had resulted from the construction of the airport. The minister will admit that is the procedure followed where land is expropriated.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that I follow the hon. member. Is the hon. member referring to a case where we pay compensation for a portion of A's land because of these regulations and then next week, after we have paid the compensation, expropriate that very portion? Is that the case?


Howard Charles Green: That is what I was referring to earlier in my remarks but now I am approaching it from the other angle.


Lionel Chevrier: Have I answered my hon. friend on the first part?


Howard Charles Green: No. Suppose the land, is expropriated by the government. The amount that the owner gets will be reduced by whatever increase in value is caused by the construction of the airport.


Lionel Chevrier: I can answer that immediately by saying that that case will be dealt with according to the ordinary rules of expropriation under the Exchequer Court Act. My hon. friend wants me to give him an answer now on a hypothetical case. I cannot. How can I? The only answer I can give my hon. friend is that, if we zone, the compensation is provided here in clause 8, and if we expropriate, the compensation is set out in the Exchequer Court Act.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but the point is that in both cases the amount which is deducted from the compensation that the owner gets is the same. You deduct from his damages as a result of the zoning regulations the increase in the value of the land caused by the construction of the airport. If you come along three or four years later and expropriate the land you make the identical deduction again. Therefore it is not fair to the owner. You are taking that same amount away from him twice.


Lionel Chevrier: Will that not be a matter for determination by the court? Is it not a fact that under the rules the value to be determined by the court is the value at the time the plan and the expropriation proceedings

Aeronautics Act
are filed in the registry office? That is the time at which values are determined. I cannot give a more accurate or a fairer answer to my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: But our complaint is about the deduction, not the value that is placed on the amount of damage caused by the zoning regulations. We would be quite satisfied to have the amount of damage decided by an exchequer court judige. But this section has a string attached to it by way of this minus provision which compels the judge to take away whatever the amount may be by which the property has been increased by the construction of the airport.


Lionel Chevrier: That is already in the Exchequer Court Act.


Howard Charles Green: The judge has exactly the same deduction to make. If a man's property is expropriated and the case goes to the exchequer court, then under the Exchequer Court Act the judge has to make exactly the same deduction, which means that the man is not getting proper compensation. He is having that amount deducted twice. That is our complaint. But if the minister will not do anything about it we cannot.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to be unfair to the opposition-


Howard Charles Green: It is not being unfair to us, but to the owners of the properties.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think we are being unfair to the owners. I think we are being very fair to the owners, because we are giving them something which never existed before. We give them compensation, and such a provision does not exist in the United States. In the United States airports are zoned, but no compensation is paid at all. Here we are zoning and will pay compensation. We are breaking new ground, as I said earlier, and we are going much farther than our neighbours to the south.
What I am suggesting to the hon. member is that this section should be given a fair trial, since it does break new ground. The Exchequer Court Act is there if we do make a mistake and are not able to negotiate a fair settlement with the owner.


Howard Charles Green: You are stepping, in effect, into the field of property and civil rights. It is an entirely new departure, and all we suggest is that when you provide for this compensation, if you are going to give any compensation at all you should give a fair amount.


Lionel Chevrier: We have given it careful consideration.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I merely want to say that in the committee I supported this section

which we are discussing, chiefly on the ground that I felt there was a need for some such regulation to protect the taxpayers against the would-be speculator, and in the second place because I prefer to trust the good judgment of the experts in the minister's department to some of the legal minds in the official opposition.
However, I should like to ask the minister this question. Let us assume that two men, say at Malton, have thirty acres each which are closely affected by this zoning regulation, and that the damages would be about the same to each of the two men. One is the original owner of the land, since he probably took up the farm fifty years ago. There would be deducted from his compensation the increased value which had accrued to those thirty acres by reason of the airport being established. The second man came into possession a month before the zoning regulations went into effect. As I read this clause, there would' be no deduction from his compensation, because it would be only reasonable to assume that there had been no increase in the value of the land within the past thirty days. Would the department then be required to pay the recent purchaser a much more substantial sum by way of compensation than they would have to pay to the one who was the original owner of the thirty acres?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not think so, because the value of the land at the time the plans were deposited would be the fair market value, which I take it would be the value paid by the second individual to the first. I do not imagine there would be a great difference.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister does not think there would be any great difference in the compensation paid to the two men.


Howard Charles Green: How could the minus provision come into effect in the latter event, where the man bought the property a month ago, which may be years after the airport was established. Obviously this minus provision does not come into effect at all, and the government would have to pay that man more than the one who held his property since before the airport was erected.


Lionel Chevrier: I can only say to the hon.
member for Vancouver-Quadra that these are hypothetical cases which it is rather difficult to answer accurately, and that is what one is being asked to do. The departmental officials will try to negotiate a fair settlement. If they are not successful, the court will determine the amount. I am being asked what the difference would be between the two, and all I can do is to give my view that this is the position.

Subsection 2, paragraph 8, agreed to.
Subsection 2, paragraph 9 as amended agreed to.


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


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 289, to amend the Canada-France Income Tax Convention Act, 1951.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to approve the codicil to the income tax convention between Canada and France. The convention was approved by parliament as chapter 40 of the statutes of 1951, assented to June 30, 1951. Under the convention a French enterprise will only be taxed in Canada with respect to its industrial, mining, commercial or financial profits to the extent that these are attributable to its permanent establishment in Canada. Similarly, a Canadian enterprise will only be taxed in France with respect to similar profits attributable to its permanent establishment in France.
Now, I should like to point out to the house that the change in this bill has to do entirely with what constitutes a permanent establishment, either in France or in Canada. The term "permanent establishment" was defined in paragraph VI of article 2 of the original agreement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that the agreement attached to the act?


James Joseph McCann: That is the agreement we passed a year ago, and it is attached to the act.
The codicil to the convention, which is the subject of the present bill, adds a further refinement to this definition of "permanent establishment". It provides-this is the change-that a Canadian enterprise shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in France, if the contract for the sale of goods is settled in Canada, even though the goods are kept in storage in France for the convenience of delivery and not for publicity purposes. The same rule applies to a French enterprise selling in Canada. A company may have an agent in the other country to solicit orders which are transmitted to the home country for final acceptance. A similar provision was included in the income tax agreement between Canada and New Zealand, and it is also found in the agreement made between Great Britain and France.
Canada-France Tax Agreement
The convention is not yet in force. It will come into force upon an exchange of notes between the Canadian and French governments, which exchange will take place when the necessary legislation has been passed in both countries. I might also add that, as to the action being taken by the French government to bring the convention into force, we have been advised by the Department of External Affairs that Mr. Pinay, the French Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, stated in the French national assembly on May 9, 1952, approximately as follows, and I quote:
The convention signed between France and Canada on the 14th March, 1951, could not be submitted for the approval of the French parliament because it was thought desirable, in advance, to complete and clarify certain of its provisions. However, agreement on the matters in doubt can now be considered as having been definitely settled and everything will be done to complete the necessary proceedings for putting the convention into force within as short a delay as possible.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker,
I do not think there is any question of principle involved here. There are one or two questions I should like to ask, however, but they can wait until we get into committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Ashbourne in the chair.
On section 1-Codicil approved.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, the schedule to the new bill states:
The government of the French republic and the government of Canada, desiring to complete the agreement signed on March 14, 1951-
I have the statute in my hand. The agreement which appears as a schedule says it was signed on March 16. Apparently there is another agreement because actually, so far as I can discover in this agreement attached to the bill, this amendment which we have does not fit in with the numbering. Can the minister tell me whether there is another agreement dated March 14? Perhaps I had better add this. If the minister will read the wording, and if he will look at article I of the agreement which appears in the schedule, he will find that it reads as follows:
Paragraph 6 of article II of the agreement of March 14, 1951, is to be completed with a new subparagraph (iii) which reads as follows:
In the agreement in the statute which I have before me, and which appears as a schedule to the bill, paragraph VI of article 2 already has three subsections. I do not want to make heavy weather about this matter, but I am not able to understand the numbering; and if there is any confusion, it seems to me that now is the time to get it straightened out. Have I made my point clear to the minister? The agreement attached to the bill is dated March 16. In the new Bill

Canada-France Tax Agreement No. 289, reference is made to an agreement on the 14th of March, 1951. In the second place, the new subparagraph set out in the schedule, as far as I can discover, does not fit in, as to the numbering, anywhere in the agreement of March 16 which appears as a schedule to the act of a year ago.


James Joseph McCann: The schedule that I have here is signed on March 16.
The government of the French republic and the government of Canada, desiring to complete the agreement signed on March 14-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I am referring to.


James Joseph McCann: To continue:
-1951, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion, with respect to income taxes, have agreed as follows:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My point is this. As far as I can see there is confusion between "16" and "14". If I thought it was merely a matter of difference of dates, I would not bother.


James Joseph McCann: May I explain that the agreement was signed on March 14; the government of the French republic and the government of Canada, desiring to complete the agreement which was signed on March 14, 1951.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is something wrong there. The agreement itself -and again I read from the schedule-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was signed on March 16, 1951.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Another
thing I would point out is this. If the minister will look at the schedule to the act he will find it stated:
Done at Paris, in duplicate, on the 16th day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one.
As I say, if it was merely a question of the difference between "16" and "14", I might not bother.


James Joseph McCann: There may be an error in the schedule.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is more than that; because as far as I can discover, this amendment does not fit in. I would ask the minister himself to look at this amendment. Let me read it:
Paragraph 6 of article II of the agreement of March 14, 1951, is to be completed with a new subparagraph (iii) which reads as follows:
But in this schedule to the act, paragraph VI of article 2 already has three subsections.


Mr. Applewhaite:: It has to be renumbered.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; as a
matter of fact, it does not. As far as I can


see, either there is another document or there is some mistake in drafting. I suggest that the section stand over because I certainly am not going to pass it as it is. If the minister has not the act before him, perhaps I had better send it across to him so that he can look at it.


James Joseph McCann: I have the act here.


Mr. Abbott:: Perhaps it might stand, and we could have it checked up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think that would be the better thing to do. I suggest that it be allowed to stand.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Ashbourne):: Shall the section stand and shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As it is going to stand, may I raise this point so that the minister may consider it if he will. I appreciate that any term in article I is embodied in an international agreement. But there is one word here, which it seems to me is not in accordance with the purpose intended. It is in the second line where it uses the expression "contracts settled in said state".


James Joseph McCann: Are you reading from the codicil or from the act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am now speaking of the schedule to the present bill.


James Joseph McCann: Where is that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the schedule, in the proposed new subparagraph (iii), in the second line, we have the expression "in accordance with contracts settled in said state". I take issue with the word "settled". What is it intended to mean? It is not a word that is normally used as applied to contracts. Does it mean contracts entered into, contracts negotiated, contracts signed, executed or performed?


James Joseph McCann: I suggest that it means contracts fulfilled.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then we should certainly say so, because "settled" does not mean "fulfilled", as ordinarily applied to contracts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is synonymous with "completed".


James Joseph McCann: If my hon. friend reads the next line, I think he will find that the matter is explained. The next line reads as follows:
. . . from the sale of goods or merchandise kept In storage within the territory of the other state.
That means fulfilment of that contract. That is the whole basis of this bill. I will give my hon. friend an example. For instance, suppose the French have stocks of wine in this country. If the sales under

ordinary circumstances were made and the contracts taken and fulfilled, then the profits from them would be taxable. But if that sale is made from goods in storage in this country by an agent, and the sale is ratified back in France, then they become non-taxable, and we agree to do the same for France as France will do for us in France.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the purpose is quite clear. In other words, the company is not deemed in effect to be doing business in Canada if an agent simply acts as a medium of delivery.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But on the other hand if, in addition to acting as a medium of delivery, he makes himself a publicity agent for the purpose of advertising goods or does some other act, the company may be deemed to be carrying on business here.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But what concerns me is this word "settled". It is not a word that is normally applied at all, in legal parlance, to the context we have here. I suggest that if the meaning intended for the word "settled" is "fulfilled", then we should certainly say so. I do not so read it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We do not want to get into a legal argument, but the word "fulfilled" has a very much wider meaning than the contract completed or settled in a given place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The word "fulfilled" would not mean it was the end of the-


Douglas Charles Abbott: My own offhand opinion, for what it would be worth, would be that "settled" here would be synonymous with "completed". My hon. friend knows of those business transactions where you find the phrase: "the contract is completed in such and such a place" where the acceptance is given, and so forth. I would not worry too much about the word "settled"; I think it is synonymous with "completed".


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the Minister of
Finance will agree that two quite different meanings can be attached to the word "settled", as applied to the contract. It is used in one sense where we are thinking merely of the entering into the contract so that a binding agreement is created or completed. It is sometimes used in that sense. Then there is another quite different sense meaning fulfilment, completion of the performance on the part of the parties. This word "settled" seems to me to be a most inept word to be used here. I gather from the remarks of the Minister of Finance that the meaning sought to be attached to these words here is "entered into" so as to create 55701-177
Canada-France Tax Agreement a binding obligation. Then it seems to me that the word "settled" is not the proper word for that purpose.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If it is going to stand, perhaps it could be looked into at the same time by the law officers.


James Joseph McCann: I think this is a dispute between lawyers, and not being one I am just going to say here that my law officers use the word "settled". They say:
The codicil to the convention which is the subject of the present bill adds a further refinement to this definition of "permanent establishment." It provides that a Canadian enterprise shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in France, if the contract for the sale of goods is settled in Canada.
You people ought to agree on what is meant by "settled".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What are courts of appeal for if they do not imply that lawyers sometimes use the wrong word? It seems to me that the hon. member for Eglinton has a point. Even a second-rate lawyer like myself knows that the word "settled" does not usually imply the signing of a contract; it implies an agreement arrived at in the minds of the people who then proceed to put in the terms of the contract. In the ordinary acceptation that is what it is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We had better not get into that, because I could give you quite an argument the other way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Finance suggested that the point I raised might stand, along with the other one, and it might be given some consideration.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Do I understand that
clause 1 stands?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a
question? I should like to know when this comes up again what is meant by the phrase: "kept in storage within the territory of the other state for the convenience of delivery and not for publicity purposes". Is the minister satisfied with this? Who is to determine for what exact purpose the goods are exclusively there? However, that can wait until it comes up again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Samples.


James Joseph McCann: Stock is not actually there, but samples of the goods are there.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Clause 1 stands. Should
clause 2 stand as well? Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day?


James Joseph McCann: Later this day.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

Immigration Act IMMIGRATION ACT



AMENDMENT TO CONSOLIDATE AND CLARIFY


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting immigration to amend, consolidate and clarify the Immigration Act, and inter alia to provide for the making of loans to immigrants in respect of the costs of their transportation, and living expenses en route, to their place of destination in Canada; to provide also for the payment, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, of the costs of transportation of divers categories of persons from Canada in certain cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister whether he intends to make a statement at this stage, which, if I may be allowed to suggest, would possibly save further debate at this time?


Walter Edward Harris: I will make a statement, but I would prefer to make it in committee on the resolution, if that meets with my hon. friend's approval.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I simply ask that the minister outline the course he intends to follow in connection with the bill. If that were done I think it might avoid debate.


Walter Edward Harris: As the resolution says, this is a prelude to the amendment and codification of the present Immigration Act. It relates only in part to immigration policy. To a very large extent it relates to the administration of immigration. It has certain provisions of a financial character, such as those mentioned in the resolution. But these are not departures in principle; they are merely an insertion in the act of authority for expenditures which are now made by the estimates and do not reflect a change in policy.
There are certain provisions in the bill which would facilitate the handling of cases in Canada, so that we will not have as much delay in the transactions with persons who are either ordered deported or allowed to land. There are other provisions which would modernize the act, which has not been revised since 1910.
I should hope that hon. members would bear in mind that the policy on immigration is not touched on except in so far as the prohibited classes are concerned. The other groups who are admitted by government policy are admitted by orders in council passed consequent upon the authority in the act. Since this department has not yet had its estimates called I would propose, and I would hope that hon. members would agree with me, that we can debate immigration policy as such on the estimates, so that this bill in the meantime might proceed.

If the house sees fit to give it second reading, it will be my intention to move at that time it be referred to a select committee of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the light of what the minister has said, and since there will be other opportunities to debate the principle, should it seem desirable, and particularly since the minister has drawn our attention to the fact that his estimates have not yet been considered, we of the official opposition would be inclined to let this resolution pass through this stage without debate, although we wish to ask certain questions in committee.


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


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something before this motion passes. The resolution refers to the making of loans to immigrants in respect to costs of their transportation and living expenses en route and so forth. We had a case in my district of a Dutch immigrant who came over to Canada along with his wife and children. He had been in Canada only-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is not that precisely a case about which the inquiry could be made in committee? This is a motion to go into committee. We are not yet in committee. The hon. member can ask his question of the minister in committee.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If you are going into committee right away, all right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: This Dutchman and his wife and family came over to Canada. They had been in Canada only about a week when the father became ill. A local doctor examined him with the result that eventually this man was rushed to the Peterborough hospital. It was thought at first that he was suffering from cancer but, thank the Lord, this was not so. After a sample had been sent to Toronto it was learned that he was suffering from a tumour.
I understand that the hospital care is paid for as the result of a dominion-provincial agreement, but there is no provision for payment to the doctor who looked after this immigrant. Those doctors who were involved in the case, and particularly the surgeon, who must have done an excellent job because the immigrant today is regaining health and in the end will be in better health than he has been for the past twenty years, should be paid. It is my personal view that there should be some arrangement whereby doctors

attending cases of that kind would be looked after, especially when the person treated has been in Canada for only a week or two.
Because of his illness the immigrant in question will not be able to work for some considerable time, and he will have difficulty enough in even making a living for his own family, let alone pay any doctor bills. Is it possible for the department to place something in the agreement with the provinces whereby medical expenses as well as hospital expenses can be paid?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I must say this is the first time I have ever heard anyone in the House of Commons recommend that an immigrant should be treated more favourably than a Canadian. However, I shall take into consideration what the hon. member has said. I would doubt whether the federal and provincial governments would feel that their agreement should go that far, but the matter can always be considered.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is not a case of treating one person more fairly than another. I suggest it is a case where an immigrant, upon applying for permission to come to Canada, should have been X-rayed not only for chest ailments but also for any cancer or tumour that may have been present. An X-ray would have shown up this tumour. I suggest this is one instance where the medical authorities overseas fell down on the job. It is up to the department to do something about it.


Walter Edward Harris: Surely it must be obvious to the hon. member for Peterborough West that had this tumour developed six weeks earlier the government of Canada would not have been put to the expense. It would have been dealt with by the immigrant in Holland. I cannot see where there has been any neglect on our part-unless, as the hon. member suggests, we should insist upon X-rays of all parts of the body.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I am getting at.


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend feels that is what we should do, I shall consider the matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since there was no debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair, there are a few considerations I should like at this time to lay before the minister. It has been drawn to my attention that possibly the minister would wish to make a statement at this stage.


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then there are two points I would lay before the minister to which he might give consideration. I should like to 55704-1774
Immigration Act
know whether the bill to be introduced will affect these matters, and if so how.
The resolution states-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting immigration to amend, consolidate and clarify the Immigration Act-	[DOT]
And so on. It is difficult to discuss the proposed legislation, because it has not yet been seen by hon. members. As I say, however, there are some general considerations which could be put forward now. The first of these-and there are not many; I can assure the leader of the house I shall not take long-is that there are a large number of Canadians who interest themselves in immigration problems who are worried by the continued inability of British immigrants, immigrants from the United Kingdom, to gain admittance to Canada. It seems to us that, while we realize full well the difficulties in the way, something more could be done to facilitate the entry of desirable immigrants from the United Kingdom who, for various reasons, find at the present time that they cannot come here. It also seems to us, following press reports in the matter, that Australia particularly, as well as New Zealand and other commonwealth countries, are getting what might be described as the cream of the crop. A substantial number of immigrants are going to those countries from the United Kingdom, and we feel that such persons would make a real contribution to the cultural as well as the economic and industrial development of this country. I would ask the minister to tell us at this stage what progress has been made in solving the difficulties, and whether it is proposed in the bill to follow to take any steps to remove those difficulties.
Then, I believe large numbers of Canadians are worried about some matters of administration which should be laid before the minister now, before the bill is actually introduced. The first of these causes of concern is as a result of what might fairly be described as rackets in connection with immigration. Let me make it clear at once that I am not alleging widespread abuses, but I am referring to the one particular set of abuses revealed in connection with immigration officers and some of the personnel at Karlsruhe, Germany, and in Italy.
The information we have on the subject would seem to reveal that there were far more civilians than there were personnel of the department involved in these irregularities. Indeed I think it should be pointed out that so far as the present case is concerned there were comparatively few departmental officials or employees concerned, and in a number of cases they were employees

Immigration Act
who had been engaged on a temporary basis in European countries. So I should like to say that on the basis of present information it would seem that our own Canadian immigration officials were not involved. I would ask the minister whether he can give the committee any further information in connection with inquiries that have been made.
On April 23 I placed on the order paper a question to which the answer was far from complete. I am not making any heated complaint in that regard because I was informed at the time that the investigations had not been completed. I do however wish to refer particularly to certain questions and answers. I asked in question 9:
Are the names of any private individuals in Canada, Italy, Germany or elsewhere, who were involved in, or any way connected with, these irregularities or illegalities (other than the immigrants themselves) known to the government? If so, what are the names, addresses and occupations of such persons, and in what way were they involved?
The answer to that question was as follows:
It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose such information.
If the reason for that answer is that the investigation into the way in which these persons were involved, and any legal consequences which should follow, was not complete, and that for that reason it was not in the public interest to disclose the information, the answer would be acceptable. But if it is intended by that answer that it is not generally considered in the public interest that that type of information should be disclosed, then I for one do not accept that answer. The fact is that some 75 persons were admitted illegally to Canada. They may have been legally qualified to enter this country, but nevertheless they were admitted illegally because of irregularities engaged in by a small number of persons in the employ of the department. In proportion to the seriousness of the crime, there was a comparatively large number of civilians, both in this country and in Europe, who were involved.
I think it is in the public interest that a disclosure should be made of the names of those who have taken part in rackets of this kind once the information is definitely established and once the fact of their participation is definitely proved. I think it is definitely in the public interest that other immigrants should not be victimized by this type of racket or by these particular individuals. I ask the minister to state whether the proposed legislation will provide additional precautions to prevent the occurrence of such irregularities in the future, and to comment particularly with respect to the present position of the irregularities which have already been disclosed.
IMr. Fulton,]
There is another administrative matter which is bothering the people of Canada. I refer to the lack of administrative machinery to ensure that immigrants that have been brought to this country on the understanding that they will work in a particular job for a certain length of time remain in that employment during that time. I am thinking particularly of farm labour. There seems to be a fairly widespread trend among immigrants who have been brought here to work on farms for a certain period to drift into the cities before that period has elapsed.
Another matter to be considered is the inadequate provision for the assistance of immigrants coming to this country to work as domestic help. I know of instances where couples have come out to work in Canadian households. Their work has been found most satisfactory and the arrangement was continuing quite well. I have been impressed with the way in which Canadian householders have given every assistance to immigrants to learn English' and to qualify themselves as rapidly as possible as good citizens.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning this other matter, but apparently, owing to the good food and perhaps the climate, it has happened in the case of many couples that pregnancies have occurred in Canada without similar pregnancies having occurred for many years previously in Europe. There have been many of these blessed events. However, they present a tremendous problem to householders in Canada who are employing these people. In cases which have come to my attention the medical advice has been that the woman immigrant should no longer continue to work. What is the householder to do? He cannot turn these people out on the street, and yet he is sometimes unable to arrange alternative accommodation.
I know of cases where householders have asked welfare agencies what can be done and have applied also to the department. I understand that there is only one person in the department to look after the welfare of all displaced persons in the immediate district. That person is simply snowed under. There is no suggestion that she is not making every effort to assist these people; the fact is that she simply cannot cope with the situation. Eventually one case I know of was dealt with by a private welfare agency in the city. It seems to me that some provision should be made by the department for the assistance of immigrants coming to this country and finding themselves in difficult circumstances so that the position of both the immigrant and the Canadian householder will be relieved.
It is indicated that the legislation contemplates a system of assisted passage and

I feel that it is a corollary to suggest that there should be closer supervision of the immigrant after he arrives here.
It has just been brought to my attention that the employers of immigrants, particularly displaced persons, are being asked by the department to supply information and make deductions from the salaries of immigrants to be turned over to the department to compensate for passage money advanced. This matter comes directly within the provisions of the resolution, which states that the legislation is to provide for the making of loans to immigrants in respect of the costs of their transportation. A circular letter-it was not even an original letter- was sent to this employer stating that he was expected to undertake and agree to make certain deductions from the pay of the immigrant employee and turn that over to the department monthly. In addition he was to undertake and agree to provide the department with certain specific information with respect to the immigrant.
I think Canadians have shown a commendable willingness to take on and train displaced persons and assist them in becoming useful and valuable citizens of Canada. A circular letter making the demand that they undertake and agree to do certain things is not calculated to further that policy and that attitude on the part of Canadian employers.
I wish to point out that in this case it was not the employer who had put in a request for this immigrant as an employee. The immigrant came to this employer who had certain vacancies in his establishment and asked if he could be given a job. He was given a job and a short time later this circular letter came along making these demands. I do not think the department should be making these demands of Canadian employers who are trying to help out immigrants in this way.
The contact should be between the department and the immigrant. It could be suggested to the immigrant that he approach the employer and ask him if he is willing to make these deductions and turn them over to the department for the immigrant. If that were done there could be no objection, but I agree with the gentleman who drew this matter to my attention that it is quite uncalled for that these sudden demands be made by a mimeographed circular letter when he has given a job to a newly-arrived immigrant.
These are some administrative details and general considerations which I should like to lay before the minister at this time and ask him to comment upon, and particularly to tell us whether any improvement in this
Immigration Act
connection can be expected as a result of the legislation he proposes to introduce.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I shall follow the minister's suggestion and refrain from making any comments on general immigration policy until a later date, but I have one complaint against the department that I want to bring out into the open now if you consider it in order. I refer to the government's policy with respect to immigration from the British West Indies. This is a matter that I have dealt with in correspondence with the minister for a period of more than a year, and I should like him now or at some later time to clarify the government's policy with regard to immigration from the British West Indies.
I have gathered from my correspondence with the minister that the government has a very different policy respecting immigrants from the British West Indies from what they have with respect to immigrants from other countries. I have had applications for immigration from the British West Indies rejected on grounds that have not been made applicable in the case of other applicants with whom I have had dealings. For instance,
I have had applications for immigration from Great Britain and other countries turned down because the applicants did not measure up to our health standards. I have had some rejected because they were suspected of being communists or subversive. I have had them rejected on the ground that there was danger of their becoming indigent in Canada because provision for their maintenance that was satisfactory to the department had not been made. However, I have had applications for immigration from the British West Indies turned down on grounds entirely apart from those I have cited. There was no question as to the health of the applicants involved or their loyalty to the British way of life.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, may I point out that the admission of persons from the British West Indies is covered by an order in council such as I mentioned in my introductory remarks and would not be covered by the act. Unless my hon. friend feels he. should do so, I would prefer that we discuss this matter on the estimates when I will explain the policy and answer any questions he has in mind.


Howard Charles Green: The order in council is passed under the act.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree.
Mr. Nose worthy: If that is the wish of the minister I am quite prepared to comply, but I serve him with warning now that I

Immigration Act
want some clarification of the policy of the government in this regard when the opportune time comes.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to follow the minister's suggestion and leave the question of general policy until the estimates or some other time, but there is one point I should like to raise which I think is important. The international situation today is very critical. In fact I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day that it seemed to be deteriorating. I should like to know whether the government has given any consideration to encouraging prospective immigrants from Europe to Canada to enlist in Canada's NATO force and allow their service in that force to count as residence in Canada for citizenship purposes. After all, these men should have an interest equal to that of Canadians in stopping aggression in Europe. There is also the point that there is a certain amount of resentment when immigrants who come to Canada fill jobs vacated by Canadians who have enlisted for overseas service. If we could encourage immigrants to enlist with our forces in Europe I think it would be a good service to them and to ourselves.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say briefly that I am glad to see the minister bringing down this legislation to consolidate and codify the Immigration Act because it seems to me there is scope within the present legislation for a good deal of review. I am particularly glad to hear him say that he proposes to have the bill referred to a select committee for study after second reading. I cannot think of any place where a committee could more usefully be appointed and go to work at the present time than on this subject. Having said that, may I ask the minister one question, and in doing so I shall seek to avoid the tempting field of policy which could engage us no doubt for some time.
Is it possible for the department to schedule the admission of immigrants to this country so that more of them will come in during the summer months than in the winter months when the problem of unemployment has become an acute factor as applied to many immigrants? I think the minister realizes how much easier it would be to fit immigrants into the economic life of the country and absorb them into employment if they could be largely admitted in the months from April first to the end of September. I am informed that much of the present difficulty with respect to unemployment among immigrants arises in the case of those who enter the country after the first of October and throughout the winter.


Walter Edward Harris: To answer briefly some of the questions that have been raised, and to deal first with the question just asked by the hon. member for Eglinton, it is desirable to admit immigrants at the time when the period of waiting between their arrival and employment will be the minimum. It has always been the policy to concentrate, if possible, the admission of immigrants from roughly the first of February until some time in the late summer. That was not possible last year for a number of reasons including the fact that those who had been processed early in the year did not have transportation facilities and when the fall came they insisted on using their visas and coming forward even in the face of the knowledge that perhaps during the winter months it would be difficult to place them.
There was one other factor. The shipping that was under the control of the IRO became available in the fall for a much larger number of persons and, as I have said, they elected to come forward, unexpectedly to some extent, in the fall months rather than in the winter and spring. My hon. friend referred to the month of April, but may I suggest to him that farm workers particularly can be placed throughout the winter. The farming communities want to have men at the very earliest beginning of the spring work, and farmers are willing to take them in the winter months, even if they do not get what they consider full value for their money for a few weeks, in order to be sure that they have them when the season begins. We have had no difficulties whatever in placing farm workers throughout the year, and for that reason we have tried particularly this year to bring in farm workers in the early winter months and those who have other employment skills in the main in the later months. That is the policy, and it will be followed this year.
With respect to the hon. member for York South, I shall be glad to explain and answer any questions on immigration from the British West Indies. If in the meantime there are some points that he would like covered specifically he can let me know what they are and I shall give him the information. As to what the hon. member for Acadia said, I should like to let that matter stand and give the answer at another time. There is a matter of policy involved that affects the Department of National Defence, and I should like to be sure that in giving the answer I give what they in their experience feel the policy should be with respect to the enlistment of non-Canadians.
The hon. member for Kamloops brought up five subjects. The first had to do with whether we can bring about an increase in

the numbers coming from the United Kingdom. While I do not want to go into detail at the moment, I can assure him that up until the present time this year there has been an increase of something over 100 per cent in immigration from the United Kingdom. I should like to assure him also that at this moment shipping from the United Kingdom is more plentiful than it has been since the war.


Howard Charles Green: What are the figures to date?


Walter Edward Harris: I said I did not want to go into the details, and I have not the precise figures, but it is up over 100 per cent since last year.


Howard Charles Green: It was very low last year.


Walter Edward Harris: It was 32,000 last year, and that is not so very low.


Mr. Brooks:: Out of 194,000.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right. The next question was with respect to the answer I gave to the hon. member's question on the order paper concerning the difficulties we encountered in some of our offices abroad. The answer I gave him was only for the purpose of facilitating the investigation which is now being made by the Royal Canadan Mounted Police. It was not the intention that information on this subject should not be made public. The report of the special investigator is now being studied by the Department of Justice. There are something over 1,200 exhibits and when those have been finally studied I shall make a statement, particularly if prosecutions are launched. In the meantime, we feel that the giving of information might perhaps in some way delay or frustrate the investigation.
There was an inquiry as to persons who have engaged themselves to remain in assured employment for a period of time. This question was discussed in the house on the supplementary estimates, at which time I promised to make a statement about our viewpoint on the estimates, and I would prefer to leave that. I shall cover all the questions that were raised.
As to welfare for immigrants, I was not aware that there had been any complaint about the inadequacy of our facilities in the city of Ottawa in dealing with these matters. This is the first time I have heard that we did not have a sufficient number of persons to investigate any of these particular difficulties in which immigrants might find themselves. I shall be glad to learn further details from the hon. member.
A question was raised concerning the collection of money from the employers of those
Immigration Act
who are under the assisted passage scheme.
I realize that where an immigrant goes to an employer who has not asked for him there might be a different consideration than where the employer has asked for him; but at the same time I should remind the hon. member that there was some criticism in the house on the supplementary estimates with respect to the collection of this money. I doubt very much if any hon. member would feel that the department should not follow that immigrant to the place where he is now working and attempt to collect from the new employer the same amount that was formerly collected from the old employer. As to the particular form of approach, I agree that 'the matter should be considered, and that the co-operation of the employer should be solicited on such terms as would be satisfactory to him, to the department and the immigrant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister should look at the mimeographed letter.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not seen it, but I shall do so. We do feel that we should follow the immigrant, and we feel that employers should be agreeable, as they have been, to making these deductions in order to co-operate with us in recovering the money we have lent. I agree we should give special consideration to the employer who, in the first instance, has not asked for the immigrant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One specific point which perhaps I should have mentioned before is that, in order that the immigrant might be followed and a close check kept on him, he should be given a letter which he would show to his employer, and in this way the request would come from the immigrant. It would serve the double purpose of having the request come from the immigrant and keeping a check on his movements.


Walter Edward Harris: I would agree, but I would add this qualification. We do not know that an immigrant has left one employer to go to another until we hear from the first employer that the immigrant is no longer on his payroll. I believe I have covered all the points. If I have not, I shall be glad to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I confess that these proceedings this afternoon have surprised and disappointed me. We have here a very important measure, and so far the minister has succeeded in getting us to agree that we will really not discuss it. We shall just pass it on to a committee on second reading, and we know what happens when things get to a committee. We are told that we shall get the details about the department when the estimates

Immigration Act
come up. Sometimes estimates , come up on the last day, and it is not easy to discuss them. However, I am an agreeable person and I am not going to kick over the traces.
I was disappointed because I had an idea the minister had a statement he was going to make. He shakes his head, so I shall content myself by asking some questions. I am going to do that with some freedom, because after all I suppose this is one of the two or three most important things with which we shall have to deal at this session. Bringing 200,000 people into this country is no small affair. There are difficulties inherent in it, and no one expects it to be done without some friction. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is a great deal of discussion, a great deal of perplexity and a great deal of dissatisfaction -perhaps based on misunderstanding-about this matter. I would have thought the minister would welcome the opportunity to make a statement as soon as possible. The course which is being taken will make everyone wonder if the minister wants to tell us as little as possible instead of as much as possible. However, I am not going to press him now for the statement which should have been made. I shall content myself with asking some questions.
One question the minister may not want to answer now but which I should like him to be thinking about concerns a little book entitled "German immigration into Canada," written by Wolfgang G. Friedmann, who is a professor of law at the university of Toronto. He has some interesting things to say about immigration. I am going to read some passages from this book, and ask the minister whether he agrees or disagrees with them. The author also has an appendix containing extracts from a speech made by Mr. King on May 1, 1947. I am not sure about the date.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The author quotes from Mr. King's statement of policy. I am not going into the details of this now, but at a later time I shall certainly ask the minister whether or not he agrees with that. It is all the more important that we should have had a statement today because the genius of this bill is to allow the government to do everything by order in council. We have a few words of exclusion, a few general principles, and then the government is off to the races. As I understand it, everything from then on is done by order in council.


Walter Edward Harris: Every government has done it that way under the Immigration Act.
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).)


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
saying that two or even four wrongs make a right. I am only making the argument that it supports the suggestion I am making that we should have, not a half dozen words or one word per 100,000 people who have entered this country, but that we should have had a full statement.
I want to know something about directed employment. I wish the minister would speak about that at some length. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about it. I notice what the minister himself is reported to have said on November 28 last in Hart house. I have to quote this from the writing of Mr. Friedmann, because he does not give the full statement of the minister and I shall have to ask the minister if this is a fair summary of what he said. What Mr. Friedmann says is this:
Many Immigrants pay their own passage money and on arrival proceed to relatives, friends or places of employment. The majority, however, receive on application an advance from the Canadian government which amounts to about four-fifths of the passage money. In return they sign a contract by which they undertake to accept any reasonable work offered at current rates within the first twelve months and to repay the advance out of current earnings. This obligation, which would imply a direction of labour for an initial period is, however, purely theoretical. The immigrants know-
Here is the important thing to which I ask the minister to listen.
-and the Canadian government has officially confirmed-that it will not direct immigrants to any employment.
The footnote to the words "officially confirmed" says:
Through the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon. Walter Harris, during the debate at the university of Toronto debating society on November 28, 1951.
Will the minister say whether that is a fair summary of what he said, because I am going on from there if it is.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what Mr. Friedmann had in mind by using that words "directed employment." We undoubtedly do direct people to employment. If what he meant was where he goes to employment and then finds it unsatisfactory, or his employer finds it unsatisfactory, and the arrangement terminates, it is a fair statement to say that we intervene only to the extent that we try to compose the differences; and failing that, we do not order the man to work where he does not wish to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I think what he says is pretty fair. He says that the obligation is, however, purely theoretical. In view of what the minister has just said, if I go and take a job I do not like and want

to leave, I leave. I am not minimizing the difficulty. I am only asking whether that is what is publicly understood.
I should like the minister to say a little bit more about that, just drawing to our attention what has been said and what has been understood. For instance, will the minister say something about the communications which have taken place with labour? Of course we all constantly run into situations where we are told that employment is difficult. I hope the minister will believe me when I say that I do not listen too readily to stories of that kind; because what one finds is that sometimes all they mean is that persons have not been able to get employment right on the spot. Nevertheless one runs into that sort of thing constantly.
One is also told-and here again I have not all the evidence and I am asking the minister for a statement-that the government gives assurance that people will not be brought in for callings which are already fully staffed, such as, let us say, that of textile worker. All right. Nobody is brought in who is called a textile worker. But it is said that if you go back into the dossiers, or at any rate into the lives, of the people who are coming out and who are, let us say, called farm labourers, you may find quite a few textile workers among them. Those are the things that are being said. Of course if that is true the next argument that would be made is: Yes, textile workers are allowable as farm labour; and if you put one of them on a farm and next month he leaves, you cannot do anything about it. Will the minister say something about that matter, because it is undoubtedly troubling people across this country. I have run into the complaint, as I am sure have others, not twenty times but fifty times.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this particular point at some length on the supplementary estimates. That discussion was concluded by my hon. friend who said he appreciated the arguments that had been made both for and against directed employment, as the phrase is now used.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I have said now.


Walter Edward Harris: At that time, after having explained the position which was taken by the Department of Labour with respect to persons who were so-called d.p.'s and the position taken by this department with respect to immigrants, I gave the assurance that we would give consideration to the inquiries and the representations which were made-I think by at least one
Immigration Act
member of the party which the hon. gentleman represents-that we should alter the policy we now follow, and that I would speak on that subject on the estimates. Since then we have been considering the problem and have been gathering as much information as we could about it. I think we might leave it until that time. I have no objection to expressing an interim view, but I would much prefer to express a firm opinion at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: After all, it is a question that changes from time to time and I think an interim view would be interesting. It does not "stay put".


Walter Edward Harris: The position does "stay put" fairly well, Mr. Chairman. May I refer now to one of the facts stated in the article that has been read. I think the hon. member said that some three-quarters of the immigrants had come by assisted passage. Is that the figure that was given?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I repeat the quotation:
The majority, however, receive on application an advance from the Canadian government which amounts to about four-fifths of the passage money.


Walter Edward Harris: All right. Perhaps I have the wrong figure in mind. But in the whole of last year, and indeed this year, there were only approximately 15,000 warrants for assisted passages. I am therefore not quite prepared to agree that that figure is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I should point out that he is speaking about Germans and Austrians.


Walter Edward Harris: If he is, I doubt if he is correct; but I am not prepared to speak precisely on that matter. When the committee realizes that out of 194,000 people who came in last year slightly over 15,000 family groups were represented by A.P. loans, I suggest that the problem is not of major importance, except in so far as the principle is concerned as to whether these people should have the benefit of the help of the department in getting employment suitable to their talents and suitable to the requirements of Canadian employers. We are going to discuss that principle, as I said, some time in the next three or four weeks, I hope, when the estimates are called, at which time I shall give full details in answer to the article my hon. friend mentions.
With respect to the admission of textile workers as farm labourers, while I have no doubt it has happened I must say that I greatly doubt whether it has happened often enough to be of any consequence in the unemployment which is present in the textile industry at the moment. I also hear

Immigration Act
these stories. I know that persons abroad will apply and will say: While I am a textile worker, I am ready to go on the farm; and *by that means he may possibly gain admission. But I would doubt whether there are more than a small number of persons who come forward as farm labourers, because our instructions to our officers are that they should investigate people. They do investigate them, and they do not take the word of the applicant that he is a farmer without something more to bolster that opinion.


Mr. Croll:: I do not think the minister has quite answered the question put to him by the hon. member for Greenwood. I made some notes when he was speaking, and I understood that the hon. member for Greenwood had indicated that he was in favour of directed or enforced labour on these immigrants.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman-


David Arnold Croll: I would ask the minister to answer that question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -that is an absolutely outrageous misrepresentation of what I said.


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member has had his chance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I say that is an absolutely outrageous misrepresentation.


David Arnold Croll: That was the note I took, and I wanted to know whether the minister would answer that question. If the hon. member did not say that, just let him say so, and I will take his word for it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I confined myself entirely to asking questions. I have always put the hon. member down as being a fair-minded man, and I have always wanted to do so. But if he does not apologize for what he has said I shall withdraw that in my own mind, absolutely.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Chairman, I said that I was following the hon. member-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Following the infamous practice of slander by innuendo.


David Arnold Croll: I hear some chirping from over there on the other side. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I was following the hon. member for Greenwood. He was discussing the directed or enforced employment, so used. From what he said I gathered that he was in favour of that method of employing D.P.'s or immigrants, and he asked what the minister's views were on that matter. I may have misunderstood the hon. gentleman-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member misunderstood absolutely.


David Arnold Croll: All right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I try to be
fairly clear and fairly honest in this house; and what the hon. member has just said is an absolutely outrageous misstatement.


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member is now using the head which he did not possess when he asked the question. He ought to guard his own words. That was my understanding. If he states that he did not ask that question and that it was not his intention to do so, that is the end of my question, and I withdraw the suggestion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No; it is not
the end of it because the hon. member has put forward the innuendo.


David Arnold Croll: The hon. member is not listening to himself. I am one of the members who, unfortunately, has to listen to him. I have expressed the thought that came to me as the hon. member was speaking, and that is the question I thought he put to the minister. If he says he did not do so I have nothing further to say, and I withdraw the question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I asked the minister whether directed employment was in existence. I asked the minister that question. I know the difficulties of it. I said that, and I asked the minister to what extent it took place, and to what extent those who were placed in directed employment stayed there. That was my question. I made no statement of any kind. I spoke in this house the other day and I said that the hon. member was a fair-minded man. I am sorry I have to withdraw it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to ask the minister a question with regard to certain people, namely Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians. I had a case brought to my attention of a young Latvian man who came to this country and established himself in my own home town of Sussex, as a matter of fact. He is well established. He was promised that he could bring out his family, his father, his mother and his brothers. After investigation it was decided that these people could be brought to this country; but I believe on further investigation it was found that this young man's father, a Latvian, had served with what is called the Latvian legion against the Russians, and served with the German army.
The facts of the matter are that Latvia was overrun by Russia, as hon. members know,

in 1940. Later on the Germans came into the country and conscripted those Latvians. It was not voluntary service that was given, it was compulsory and it was against the Russians who had overrun their country. This young man's father, like many others, belonged to the so-called Latvian legion which was fighting against the Russians whom he considered his oppressors. He had never fought against any other people except Russia, but on account of fighting against an ally of ours at that time the people in this Latvian legion are prevented from coming to this country as immigrants; at least that is my understanding.
The United States immigration authorities take an entirely different view of that matter from the immigration authorities here in Canada. I hold in my hand a document which reads:
The true nature of the Latvian legion was also studied under scrutiny by the United States displaced persons commission. The latter has made in its decision of September 1, 1950, the following statement:
"Baltic Waffen-SS units (Baltic legion) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities and qualification for membership from German SS, and therefore: The displaced persons commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the government of the United States under section 13 of the displaced persons act of 1948, as amended."
The result is that these people are allowed to migrate to the United States, but so far they have not been allowed to migrate to this country. This is creating a hardship. I should like to ask the minister whether he has studied this situation, and whether any further study will be given it. I have a number of papers here which were given to me by this young man from my home town of Sussex, which say that his father is a man of very high education, and I believe he would make a desirable citizen.
There is another matter which they sort of take as proof against these people whom we would desire to have in this country. They say they were German sympathizers. There is the fact that some sort of blood test was made, and they have the German symbol on their arm which shows that they belong to a certain blood group, and so on. Whether or not the minister has any knowledge of this I do not know. If he has, I should like to have his comments. Frankly the case of this young man and his family, along with others who I believe have made application, might be reconsidered.


Walter Edward Harris: The department
has examined into the record of the Latvian legion; in fact, it has examined into all the many national groups which became involved in the invasion first by Russia and second by Germany, and then again by Russia, in central
Immigration Act
and eastern Europe. The general principle on which the department has judged these applications is: Was the man a volunteer, or was he a conscript? Second, what was his personal record?
I have no particular idea of the case my hon. friend mentions. If he gives me the name I shall be glad to look into it again; but some of these people were just as nazi as the nazis and are not given the privilege of coming to Canada. That is to say, it depends upon their personal records and on the information which fortunately is available to us. Generally, however, the mere fact that a person served in arms is not considered as anything derogatory to his application.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In that connection I might say that this man was subsequently employed and is at present employed by the British occupation army in Germany. I have a letter here, but I will not read it to the committee. It speaks in the very highest terms, most complimentary terms of this man. I would be very pleased to give the names to the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the discussion this afternoon much importance has been attached to the statement that the submission of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to the committee of supply will offer an adequate opportunity to consider questions of policy in regard to immigration. That is going to be a very important occasion. The minister let one remark drop a few minutes ago that rather chilled my blood when he referred to the time of the estimates coming up as being three or four weeks from now.


Walter Edward Harris: No; any time within the next three or four weeks.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Two or three
weeks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I just wish to express the hope, and ask the minister to give his assurance, that the estimates of his department will not be left until late in the session. At the speed with which the house is transacting its business these days, the end of June may find this house prorogued. I would urge the minister not to leave the estimates of his important department to the dying days of the session, because the minister can see that the house is showing much interest in this subject and there is bound to be a good deal of discussion on questions of policy.


Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):: Will the
minister give the committee some more

Immigration Act
information about this last clause in the resolution:
To provide also for the payment, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, of the costs of transportation of divers categories of persons from Canada in certain cases.
Whom do you have in mind?


Walter Edward Harris: We have in mind a situation of this kind. Persons have come to Canada in good health and have subsequently become ill and subject to deportation. In the meantime they have married Canadians, and often have had a family born here. When it becomes necessary to deport them, there is no law that permits the deportation of the Canadian wife or the Canadian-born children; yet it would be the desire of the wife and children to go with the male parent to the country of origin. The provision here is to permit the government of Canada to share the expense of that so the family will not be separated.


David Arnold Croll: Did I understand the minister to say he is going to ask the house to give him greater powers of deportation, not only relating to the immigrant but perhaps to the Canadian-born child?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it clear that this is only in case it is the desire of all concerned that they should go. There is no additional power, but there is power to expend money in assisting them to go.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I read some time ago that the Toronto welfare council had asked the minister or his department to revoke the regulation which calls for the deportation of immigrants who become indigent. Can the minister tell us whether it has been the practice of the government to deport immigrants who have become indigent in Canada and, if so, how many of them have been deported on that ground?


Walter Edward Harris: I cannot give the number who have been deported, but there have been some. Usually, however, there are other circumstances which make it abundantly clear that there is no possibility of rehabilitation here.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What sort of individual has the minister in mind when he speaks of one who becomes ill here and who has to be deported because of that sickness? Would the minister care to develop that point, to give some idea as to the sort of person who would be deported?


Walter Edward Harris: 
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I thought the minister was talking about a physical sickness.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration look after the health and welfare services required by immigrants?


Walter Edward Harris: It depends upon what is required. We have settlement officers who are responsible for reporting cases where assistance is required. They get in touch with the municipal authorities, and these people may then become entitled to help under the agreement with the provincial governments to which reference has already been made. It all depends upon the nature of the problem to be solved.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is it not true that the threat of being deported as indigents hangs over the heads of many immigrants to this country and prevents their appealing for help to some of our organized welfare groups?


Walter Edward Harris: That may be the
case; but there are a number of immigrants who do appeal to us for assistance and who, on occasion, have received it. If the hon. member is prepared to wait I could give him the figures respecting those who have come to our notice by reason of their being indigent. I believe he would find that while in many cases orders for deportation are made, we postpone the execution of those orders for a considerable time to give further opportunity to find employment.


Agar Rodney Adamson: While I realize it is dangerous to particularize about one case, I have in mind an immigrant who came here, developed tuberculosis and was hospitalized. The minister will perhaps recall that the case was brought to his attention. This man had been getting along well in this country, but apparently he had a lesion which became active with the result that he was hospitalized in one of the sanatoria in Ontario on a temporary basis. Because he had developed tuberculosis the order for deportation was issued. An appeal was lodged against the order, and I gather that temporarily the appeal was rejected. The medical officer of health in the township in which the immigrant was residing appealed to me on his behalf, with the result that the stay of deportation was granted.
That happens to be one case, but it seems to me unfair that when an immigrant has been given a clean bill of health by our immigration service overseas, and subsequently in this country develops tuberculosis, an order for deportation should be mandatory. In the case to which I have referred stay

of deportation was granted. It seems to me, however, that a man with a lesion or an incipient tubercular condition might wish to withhold that information or in every way possible conceal his condition, because if it were discovered that he had tuberculosis deportation would be mandatory. Of course if bad faith can be proven; if it can be shown that in order to get to Canada an immigrant has lied about his condition, that is an entirely different matter. But if the immigrant has come to this country in good faith believing that he has a clean bill of health, and when here develops tuberculosis, it seems unfair that the order of deportation should be mandatory, irrespective of how he may have been getting along in this country. Would the minister care to comment?


Walter Edward Harris: Only to this
extent, that under the act at present such procedure is mandatory. One purpose in having a committee on the bill would be to canvass those problems. If it is felt that the particular set of circumstances described should be an exception to the rule, then if the hon. member is a member of the committee I am sure he would offer an amendment to the bill to see that such a provision is inserted. He has raised a point affecting the whole medical profession, all the provincial governments and all others who feel strongly on the subject of the health of immigrants. I would prefer that the details be examined in committee, where we can get the best information as to what should be done in the circumstances.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is satisfactory to me. I should not like anything I have said to be considered to mean that I would recommend in any way the lowering of the health standards of people entering this country. I am sure these people should be checked, and it is possible that the standards should be more severe. There are cases, however, where tuberculosis develops after entry to Canada and the mandatory provision seems unfair in those circumstances.


Howard Charles Green: About three weeks ago a dispatch from London appeared in the Vancouver Province, stating:
United Kingdom emigration to Canada has been drastically reduced and the future Canadian immigration picture is confused, apparently as a result of policy changes in Ottawa.
British people planning to go to Canada on their own have recently been unable to get the medical cards required by immigrants from immigration offices in London.
Provincial offices are awaiting clarification of the regulations but are now operating on the understanding that only persons in certain technical categories with definite employment assured and domestic and agricultural workers can proceed to
Immigration Act
Canada. As there are few domestics and farm helpers emigrating from Britain, the new move means a grave reduction.
Then it goes on. to include a statement by W. A. McAdam, agent-general for British Columbia in London, a man of the highest standing who has served in that capacity with great efficiency for many years.
Referring to the general situation, Mr. McAdam is quoted as follows:
It is very serious. I would not care to comment further until regulations are made clear.
The article continues:
He said his office had notified some persons planning to go to B.C. soon to await clarification of the new Canadian regulations rather than carry on with arrangements leaving present employment and booking passage to leave Britain.
I wonder if the minister could comment on that press dispatch. It seems to indicate a very bad situation in the United Kingdom, and it is dated only May 15, just a little over two weeks ago.


Walter Edward Harris: There is no difficulty in the United Kingdom about coming to Canada. That dispatch is based upon instructions which were sent to the offices of the department in the United Kingdom along with a new list of persons who would not have assured employment if they came to Canada. When the textile people were here in the wintertime they complained about immigration, and also about the unemployment in that industry. We gave them assurance that we would inform our offices that there was this unemployment in Canada, and that we could not assure textile workers employment for the time being at least. A list of that kind was forwarded, along with a further list of the trades to which we would give the benefit of the assisted passage. Any misunderstanding which has arisen, and I doubt if there really has been any, might have arisen through the smaller group of trades to which assisted passage would be made available. There is no restriction whatever on migration from the United Kingdom to Canada and there has been no change in the regulation.
Perhaps I should mention one further instruction which was given, that in the offices in the United Kingdom preference would be given in processing to persons in the groups I have mentioned. I want to assure my hon. friend that the only difficulties that could have arisen would be through our advising our officers as to the trades which at the moment are not as open for employment as they were a year ago.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be fair to sum up the situation in this way: While there is no restriction on immigration from the United Kingdom, the three steps which have been

Immigration Act
taken in effect will slow down immigration from the United Kingdom. In the first place, a list has been given to all Canadian immigration offices in the United Kingdom of the occupations for which there are not as many openings in Canada. Second, a new and reduced list has been sent to the United Kingdom of occupations for which assistance for passage will be given.


Walter Edward Harris: And to all other countries.


Howard Charles Green: Third, in the processing of applications for migration to Canada preference is given to those who will be taking up jobs in which there are more opportunities for employment in Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: I think my hon. friend has summed up the situation, but he has come to the wrong conclusion. There is no evidence that immigration from the United Kingdom is slowing up. On the contrary, as I have said already, it is continuing at a greater rate than last year and has been continuing at that rate since the date of that article.


Howard Charles Green: Of course immigration from the United Kingdom last year was comparatively small.


Walter Edward Harris: It was 32,000.


Howard Charles Green: There can be no doubt that the policies mentioned by the minister have been adopted for the purpose of preventing migration to Canada of certain groups.


Walter Edward Harris: That is not so.
As my hon. friend knows, and may I respectfully say he has not been fair enough to the committee to state, the law admits any British subjects who can show the immigration department that he has reasonable means to maintain himself, whether or not he is coming to assured employment. My hon. friend knows that, and the statement he has just made was unfair to the committee. No effort is being made to restrict immigration from the United Kingdom. Every effort has been made to avoid the criticism which has been made from the opposite side of the house that we are not telling the people in some of our offices of the conditions in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: There is no question of anybody trying to be unfair to the committee. Certainly the results of the policy the minister has announced will be to prevent people coming to Canada from the United Kingdom who might otherwise have come.


Walter Edward Harris: You could only draw that conclusion after seeing the results.


Howard Charles Green: I draw that conclusion and I think that is the conclusion which will be drawn by most people in Canada who take the trouble to examine the statement made by the minister.
The resolution deals first with the making of loans to immigrants. Will the minister explain what changes are being made in the policy of making loans? Are there to be increased loans made? Is there to be provision for the payment of new types of expenses? Are more people to be covered than have been covered previously?


Walter Edward Harris: When I introduced the resolution I stated that there was to be no change. We are giving statutory authority for the expenditure of money which up to this time has been covered only by estimates. The section of the bill, which I hope my hon. friend will see in the morning, merely states that the minister will have authority to use the revolving fund in the same manner that it is now being used. Admittedly regulations will be made from time to time covering the groups of persons who may have the benefit of this. The committee would expect that these groups would change from time to time, having regard to the immigration requirements of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Is the plan that there will simply be provision made for a fund?


Walter Edward Harris: A revolving fund.


Howard Charles Green: A revolving fund from which payments will be made by order in council or by ministerial regulation?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. In the case of groups who can qualify for the loan, transportation will be paid as determined by order in council from time to time, as has been the case in the past several months.


Howard Charles Green: Will the amount to be paid also be determined by order in council?


Walter Edward Harris: At the present time the amount paid is the total cost of transportation less $30; but in some cases the $30 is not asked for, depending on the circumstances. There is an additional amount provided for those going west of Winnipeg to cover the additional cost of transportation.


Howard Charles Green: Approximately how many loans are outstanding at the present time?


Walter Edward Harris: You mean owing to the government?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: When the assisted passage scheme came to an end last October we had approved about 17,000 warrants, of which, as I said, about 15,000 had been

used by persons who had come forward. I believe the assisted passage loan was only approved by the house in March, on the last day of the fiscal year. We have been processing them since, but I doubt whether there have been too many granted in the meantime.


Howard Charles Green: The minister means this year?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, this year. Loans were suspended from October until the supplementary estimates were passed about the last week of March. Since that time we have been granting loans for this year, but I am sorry I have not the figures. I will give them to my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Approximately how much is outstanding on the loans which were made under the earlier scheme?


Walter Edward Harris: Up to October when the suspension took place the amount loaned was approximately $3 million. I do not recall the amount collected. I gave these figures on the supplementary estimates but I have not them here. I shall be glad to supply them.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government any objective with respect to the number of immigrants to come to Canada during the present calendar year?


Walter Edward Harris: We have no objective except what we consider to be the absorptive capacity at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: What is that?


Walter Edward Harris: It will not be as great as it was last year, when we admitted 194,000. I would hope that if I mention a figure we will not start a lengthy debate on it, but I know the figure will be down to somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 for this year.


Howard Charles Green: That is for the calendar year 1952?


Walter Edward Harris: The calendar year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the
minister say what is the financial attitude of the British government with respect to immigrants?


Walter Edward Harris: There was a debate at Westminster some weeks ago in which the government restated its position. It was not prepared to advance any larger sums of money to persons desiring to go to dollar countries. I might add that in the course of that debate there was some criticism of our assisted passage scheme in that it was stated that it would work out that we would get the best type of immigrant without taking the average. But that
Immigration Act
is another matter. I should add that I understand the United Kingdom has restricted to some extent the expenditure they are making on migration to Australia and New Zealand, but in so far as dollars for immigrants to come to Canada are concerned there is no change from the position as it was a year ago last summer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
sure that I understood what the minister said about the British government feeling that we were going to get the best immigrants by reason of the inducements offered. I had thought that the Australian inducements were higher. Am I wrong?


Walter Edward Harris: The financial inducements to go to Australia and New Zealand are greater in that an immigrant can get a considerable portion of his passage paid by the Australian government and to some extent receive a contribution from the United Kingdom government, but perhaps my statement was not as clear as it should have been. As I understood the debate, there was some slight criticism that because we lent money to selected groups of highly desirable persons to enable them to come to Canada we were to that extent getting the most desirable persons. The suggestion was that we were not taking persons of the older or much younger age groups but were in fact taking the highly skilled and highly desirable persons and affording them facilities to come here.


Howard Charles Green: Can this plan be used to help an industry to migrate to Canada? Suppose there is a secondary industry in Great Britain which would be willing to move to Canada together with its technicians. What I am referring to is the establishing of a new industry in Canada. Can this loan plan be used in any way to further migration of that type?


Walter Edward Harris: I presume the hon. member is referring to our assisted passage loans.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: The assisted passage loan was designed to attract and assist in the bringing here of persons urgently needed in Canadian industry or on Canadian farms. It was not intended as a means to assist the movement of a whole industry as such. I doubt if we could extend it to that, certainly not under the present authority of the estimates, but if my hon. friend thinks we should give consideration to it I should be glad to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Has any consideration been given by the department to a plan of that type? I should think it would be the type

Canada-France Tax Agreement of plan that would not interfere at all with employment in Canada but rather might bring about an increase in employment for Canadians at home.


Walter Edward Harris: The amount of money that would be involved of course would be quite substantial. The cost of each loan we have made so far is about $200, and if my hon. friend contemplates even a small industry with a number of persons, and moving it out here completely equipped, we would be running into substantial sums. However, at the same time there is no reason why it should not be done in spite of that if it is in the interests of the Canadian economy. There are obvious difficulties which we have considered. In the first place the company in the United Kingdom would have certain capital assets which it would want to convert. They are immediately faced then with the difficulty of getting their money to Canada, and so far as I know they have been unable to overcome these difficulties. It may appear desirable, but at the moment I would think it was not possible.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 305, respecting immigration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is time to move an amendment in committee to the bill sponsored by the Minister of National Revenue. It is to change the date from the 14th March to the 16th.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could we not have that at eight o'clock? There was another point involved.


Alphonse Fournier: We have the other resolution on which we thought there would be quite a debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I remind the minister that there is another question involved in the codicil to the tax convention.


Alphonse Fournier: It would be nice if we could get this amendment through at eight o'clock because it would give the right date. I should like to do that if there is no objection.



TAX AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 289, to amend the Canada-France Income Tax Convention Act, 1951- Mr. McCann-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
(Mr. Green.]
On section 1-Codicil approved.
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, in our previous discussion there were two points at issue. One had to do with the date of the agreement. It has now been definitely established that it is the 16th of March. I shall have one of my colleagues so move.
The other point at issue was the interpretation or meaning of the wording "settled" in contracts. I am informed that "settled" is a translation of the French word "conclu", and that that was the interpretation the external affairs people put on it. I might state, as a further explanation, that in article II both the French and English text of the present codicil are equally valid.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the words March 14, where they appear in the schedule, be corrected to read March 16.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not want to be unduly persistent about the use of the word "settled". There is some help, of course, in the French version from which the minister has quoted and which, if I may say so, is quite clear as to its meaning. There could not be any doubt as to the significance of the French word "conclu". But with respect for whoever was responsible for the use of the word "settled" in the English version, Mr. Chairman, I do urge that that is a most inept word to use in this connection. We do not speak about settling contracts. In one sense we speak about arriving at or entering into a contract so as to give rise to legal obligations. In the other sense we speak about the fulfilment of contracts in terms of the conclusion or satisfactory performance of the obligations imposed by a contract. To use the word "settled" in a situation of this kind it seems to me is most inept. I wish it could be improved.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to associate myself with what my colleague has said. I fully agree.


Alphonse Fournier: But it is a treaty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I realize it is a treaty, and that it is not as simple a matter to amend it as it would be to amend the terms of our own legislation. I think we may be satisfied that we are deriving some help from the French version, because in the English version it is not clear. We do not usually employ the word "settled" in the conclusion of a contract. We should employ a better word.


James Joseph McCann: If we do not accept the word "settled" and put in another word, then the treaty would have to go back for ratification.

The French have used the word "conclu" and I am told that the correct translation of that word is "settled".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister certain that we would have to refer the change of a word in our English version back to the other contracting party? Is the minister certain of that?


James Joseph McCann: I believe the difficulty is explained and overcome by the fact that article II says the French and English texts of the present codicil are equally valid.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Combines Investigation Act to provide for the administration of the act, under the Minister of Justice, by an officer to be known as the director of investigation and research, for inquiries to be made by the director, and for the appointment of such director, deputy directors of investigation and research, and such other persons as may be required; to provide also for the establishment of a commission to be known as the restrictive trade practices commission consisting of not more than three members appointed by the governor in council, for the appointment of temporary substitute members upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may prescribe; and to provide further for the salaries, remuneration and expenses of the director, the commissioners, the officers, clerks, employees, temporary technical and special assistants.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I presume the minister is going to make a statement now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Having regard to the fact that the purpose of this motion is to get into committee, I thought it would be more satisfactory for all concerned if the motion might be put, that as soon as we got into committee I might then make my statement, which would lead into questions and a general discussion.
Combines Investigation Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Based on our experience this afternoon with a similar resolution, and elsewhere also, may I suggest to the minister that I think time will be saved in the end if he makes his statement now, in the house.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The proposed legislation arises out of the report of the MacQuarrie committee and is intended to give, in large measure, legislative form to the recommendations made in that report. You will remember, sir, that this committee was appointed in June of 1950 to study the Canadian combines legislation and recommend what amendments, if any, should be made in order to make it a more effective instrument for the encouraging and safeguarding of our free economy. The MacQuarrie committee made its final report last March, and that report was tabled during the present session.
The conclusions of the MacQuarrie committee may be fairly summarized briefly as follows:
1.	The committee affirmed the principles of the present legislation.
2.	It recommended that the two functions of investigation and report, which are at present joined in the commissioners, should be separated. This recommendation involves no diminution of the powers of the combines commission. It relates, rather, to internal organization.
3.	The report recommends certain additional measures for the strengthening of the combines legislation.
I am sure it is unnecessary for me at this stage to review the history of the MacQuarrie committee but, out of deference to the persons who composed it and to the, as I think, splendid work which they accomplished, I wish again at this time to mention their names. The chairman was Mr. Justice J. H. MacQuarrie of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, and the other members of the committee were Dr. W. A. Mackintosh, who is now principal of Queen's university; G. F. Curtis, dean of the faculty of law of the university of British Columbia, and Maurice Lamontagne, now director of the department of economics of Laval university.
Speaking generally, the proposals are directed toward an important internal reorganization of the present combines investigation commission and to strengthening the legislation and the commission in a number of important respects.
Although we have become accustomed to speaking about the combines investigation commission, there is in fact no such entity and the word "commission" is mentioned nowhere in our combines legislation. There is only one commissioner in whom all the

Combines Investigation Act powers conferred by the legislation are now centred. All the other officers who have functions under the act are completely subordinate to him and under his direction.
This system has obvious advantages and it has obvious disadvantages. The MacQuarrie committee came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. They expressed the opinion that the union of functions to which I refer is a basic weakness of the legislation, being neither right in principle nor sound administratively. Its effect, by imposing disparate duties upon the commissioner, is to place him in an equivocal position. In saying this I am paraphrasing certain parts of the report because I do not think the case can be put better than the MacQuarrie committee has put it.
In the first place, the commissioner determines the over-all policy that governs the operation of the commission. Having regard to the work which the commission can accomplish, he selects those parts of the economy and those industries that are to be the subject of investigation. This obviously is a function which calls for the exercise of initiative and drive. In other words, in respect of those functions the commissioner may not be passive; he must be active. He has a definite job to perform.
While recognizing the competence with which we have been served to date in the administration of the combines legislation, the MacQuarrie committee went on to point out that the person now responsible for making reports has been and must necessarily be closely involved in both the initiation and conduct of the investigation. However impartial he may be in reaching his conclusions, his prior association with the investigation work itself provides a basis for possible criticism. As the committee put it so succinctly, in the case of a single commissioner, he is given the compromising appearance of being "at one and the same time prosecutor and judge", and no matter how fully his assessment of a situation may be justified by results, its value is lessened by the inconsistency of his position. These reports which go out to the public have important and serious consequences for the persons with whom they deal. It is important, therefore, not only that the reports be fair, unbiased and impartial-and I am satisfied that they have always been that-but it is equally important that everyone who reads the reports be absolutely convinced that this is the case.
The way to make sure of this is to provide- as we now propose to do, following the MacQuarrie committee recommendations-that the

authors of the report will have no responsibility other than that of simply interpreting the facts.
Incidental to the foregoing, the committee goes on to remark that the separation of the two functions of investigation and appraisal would effect a logical, efficient and economical division of work. In this respect the commissioner informs me that, having regard to the number of matters now pending in the commission, the preparation of reports, in itself, adds up to the time of at least three persons corresponding to the three members of the board which the MacQuarrie committee is recommending.
The report of the MacQuarrie committee lays great stress on the important position which would be occupied by the board which has been recommended. The committee pointed to the great advantage which results from drawing on the knowledge and judgment of a group of competent persons in appraising the complex problems involved in restrictive trade practices. While the committee recommended that the board as a whole would prepare a report, it was also recommended that there be power of delegation with respect to hearings and other administrative proceedings so that the different members of the board could be engaged in different inquiries prior to the report stage. In this way the full value of the combined judgment of the board would be brought to bear with respect to appraisal and the framing of recommendations but, at the same time, the division of duties among members of the board will provide for more expeditious handling of the inquiries which may be in progress.
The need for undertaking research projects and other general studies bearing upon monopoly and combines problems afforded, in the opinion of the committee, an additional reason why there should be a division of the work.
So much for internal organization.
In addition to the matter of internal organization, it is proposed to strengthen the legislation and its administration in the following important respects.
1,	provision of a new remedy whereby, while an offence is in the incipent stage, the court can order it to be discontinued; and whereby the court, in addition to the penalty imposed in a prosecution, can order a situation which has been created in contravention of the act to be dissolved.
2,	provision to remove the present ceilings upon fines.
3,	provision to extend the powers of investigation to enable the administration to investigate not only offences that have been

committed, but also the development of situations which may be expected to give rise to offences in the future.
4,	provision to permit a court before whom any person is convicted of a combines offence to require such person to make continuing returns relating to his business.
5,	provision for amendment of section 498A of the Criminal Code. In this respect paragraph (a) of subsection 1 relating to discriminatory discounts now applies to a single transaction. This may have the effect of preventing a vendor from lowering his price to meet the price of a competitor even where such a step is necessary in order to retain the business involved. As amended, the paragraph will be directed against the practice of discrimination. This, I would submit, is what the section was really aimed at in the beginning and it is hoped that with this change the section, which has seen little use, will be more practical and will serve the original intention behind it.
In this statement I have not exhausted the changes which the proposed legislation will make, but I have, I think, gone as fully into them as I should do at this stage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my comments on the statement by the minister will be brief. I do not think the statement he has made calls for extensive discussion in the house, and I know that many hon. members desire to put questions to the minister in committee. I shall therefore content myself with several brief observations and no more.
The minister has paid some tribute to the MacQuarrie committee. I am sure that all hon. members recognize the importance of the service which has been rendered by the members of this committee, and appreciate the sense of public duty and public service which animated the authors of the report.
Last autumn, in the course of discussion in this house on an interim report of this committee, I had occasion to make some comment upon the work of the committee and to express regret at that time that the committee had committed itself to a particular remedy, not having yet surveyed the entire field referred to it. I also suggested in one of the committees of the houses, which was studying the same subject, that I thought the MacQuarrie committee could have been strengthened had there been someone on that committee who had experience in direct merchandising. The practical experience of such a person I think would have been of very great value and assistance to the committee in seeking to arrive at comprehensive recommendations in the light of problems that have arisen in the course of administration of
Combines Investigation Act this important legislation. But while I retain the opinion I then expressed, Mr. Speaker, I naturally join with the minister and others in expressing tribute to the sense of public duty which has animated the authors of this report.
In the second place, sir, as the minister has indicated, we are largely concerned in the present discussion with means of improving the machinery for investigating combines or incipient combines in this country. There can be no question, Mr. Speaker, that we must always be on the alert for means of improving the machinery provided by legislation for this purpose. I do not care how suitable the machinery may be on paper, the drive behind the legislation is always going to be more important than mere questions of machinery. Nevertheless, sir, in its report the MacQuarrie committee has put its finger on a place where the present machinery does naturally give rise to some question as to whether it is the most efficient that can be devised for the purpose.
The problem of the union of diverse functions in the present commissioner is one that I am sure has added not a little to the complexity of the duties of the commissioner, and has probably led to not a little difficulty or delay in carrying out the terms of the legislation. It is important, as the minister has said, that the commissioner should not be put in an equivocal position, and it seems to me that in its report the committee has placed its finger on a situation where at least superficially the case they have made out for a change is strong.
The minister has also very properly said that on the reporting side of the functions of the present commissioner it is so important that the reports should be fair and impartial. I do not withdraw anything that I have said on any previous occasion about the importance of publicity; and I trust that, in keeping with the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee, this new legislation will not subtract one whit from the requirements of the present legislation in regard to publication of reports. The minister nods, indicating that the legislation will not tamper with that important provision of the present legislation. But the requirements of the act, in reference to the publication of reports, do serve to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, the vital importance of fairness and impartiality in these reports, and the division of functions that is now proposed into the investigation and research agency on the one hand and the board on the other will serve, I think, to relieve the present situation where, as has been said, the commissioner might find himself in a sense in the position of being both prosecutor and judge.

Combines Investigation Act
I am not going to make any extended comment upon the observations made by the minister in regard to changes of substance in the present law. There will be a better opportunity, I take it, to review those changes when the bill has been placed before hon. members.
There is one feature that may perhaps be deserving of comment, Mr. Speaker. It is the recommendation at page 63 of the report that research should be carried on in the field of monopolistic situations. I find there, under the heading "General recommendations" this interesting recommendation:
1. That research in the field of monopolistic situations and practices should become one of the most important assignments of the investigation and research agency.
Without spending too long on that recommendation, it does occur to me that the division of functions now proposed will make possible a work of research which has not, I fancy, been possible hitherto.
Finally I think what has happened since last December with respect to a particular aspect of the field covered by this legislation is not unworthy of comment. Last December there were proposals and pleas on the part of the official opposition that the amendments then offered to the house should not be hurried into enactment. We urged that time should be given for adequate consideration and review. Nevertheless the government was adamant, and insisted that those amendments should be enacted into law before the prorogation of the session. It will be recalled that we were here engaged on that task until December 29. We urged at that time that the situation sought to be dealt with by the legislation was not so urgent that it could not await more study and consideration. And now we find that after those amendments have been in effect for five months, there has not been one prosecution. There is only one inquiry afoot, and there has been nothing to report as to what has been done under that legislation.
It seems to me this completely explodes that sense of great urgency which the government sought to create last December, and which had the effect at that time of denying that legislation the adequate consideration a matter of that importance should have warranted, particularly when it involved the denial of a hearing to many important organizations who had what they considered to be representations of value to place before the committee of the house charged with the responsibility of reviewing the proposed legislation, and the alleged need of it.
I trust that in approaching this question and the whole field now covered by the final

report of the MacQuarrie committee there will be adequate opportunity of weighing all the proposals, and that we will not be rushed into enacting legislation, as we were on that occasion, without proper and adequate consideration.
There is one purpose which we of the official opposition will have directly in view in studying the legislation which is to follow the introduction of this resolution; that is that none of the safeguards provided by the present legislation in respect of access to the courts should be denied. We will scrutinize this legislation carefully, to make sure that nothing by way of right of access to the courts is denied to anyone who may be said to be within the scope of the legislation.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years we in the C.C.F. have been asking for more effective legislation to prevent combines, cartels and monopolies in restraint of trade. I have not seen the legislation the minister proposes to introduce into the house, but from what he has told us I should think it would be an improvement on what we have had in the past. That is all to the good; we welcome legislation which will make action against combines more effective. We welcome legislation which will make penalties against combines more effective because, to say the least, in the past some of the penalties have been footling in their nature. What I would like to see is combines legislation with teeth in it; not false teeth, or teeth which can be disposed of. But pending the time the legislation comes down, I shall not say anything about that.
I would like to bring to the minister's attention the case of an industry about which I reminded him last October. When we reach the committee stage I should like to learn from him how the new legislation will affect a situation such as I shall describe. I am going to place on record tonight figures which I maintain make a prima facie case that there is a combine in the electrical industry.
How it can be proved in terms of the law, I do not know. But if the law cannot use my figures to punish those who I believe are breaking it, then to my mind the law is an ass. The figures I shall use were tabled in the Manitoba legislature on March 20 of this year on motion of Mr. Swailes. He asked for the tenders that had been solicited by the Manitoba power commission during the calendar years 1950 and 1951 for electrical transmission line cable, transmission line insulators in various voltages, and insulated copper wire for distribution systems. He asked that the names of the firms submitting tenders be given to him, and also the prices

quoted. And at this time I am going to give the answer tabled by the provincial government. The similarity in the figures is much more than startling.
For instance, there is a tender for 210,000 pounds of 2/0 ACSR which, I understand, is transmission line cable. There was a figure of $32.02 per unit quoted by Northern Electric; $32.02 quoted by Canada Wire and Cable; $32.02 by Aluminum Company; $32.02 by Automatic Electric; $32.02 by Mackay Morton; $32.02 by Federal Wire and Cable. All these companies were quoting down to the very last cent the same amount for this large quantity of transmission line cable.
Then in the return figures are given for another tender involving 195,000 pounds of No. 1 ACSR, for which Northern Electric quoted $32.51; Canada Wire and Cable quoted $32.51; Aluminum Company quoted $32.51; Automatic Electric quoted $32.51; Mackay Morton quoted $32.51 and Federal Wire and Cable quoted $32.51.
This goes far beyond coincidence. Among these companies it has become a habit. Not only is it a habit in connection with transmission line cables, because we see a similar situation when we look at the figures for insulated copper wire. I see in this return a tender for 202,000 pounds of No. 8 solid wire, and I see that Northern Electric quoted $48.38; Canada Wire and Cable quoted $48.38; Automatic Electric quoted $48.38; Mackay Morton quoted $48.38; Federal Wire and Cable quoted $48.38 and Canadian General Electric quoted $48.38. These figures I give prove my statement in at least a prima facie manner that there is a combine in this industry.
Then let us take the tender for 251,000 pounds of No. 6 solid wire. In this instance Northern Electric quoted $48.02, and Canada Wire and Cable, Automatic Electric, Mackay Morton, Federal Wire and Cable and Canadian General Electric all quoted $48.02- precisely the same amount.
There was a tender for 43,600 pounds of No. 4 solid wire, and again all these companies quoted precisely the same amount of $46.90.
Another instance, this time a tender for 1,500 pounds of No. 2 solid wire, discloses that all these companies quoted exactly the same amount of $46.49, and that for No. 1 solid wire all the companies quoted the same amount, namely $46.86. I have heard the argument put up. "Well, after all, is it not possible that what happens is that one company will change its prices and other companies, in order to keep in a competitive position, immediately change their price lists
Combines Investigation Act accordingly". That is a nice argument, but it is specious when one considers that the changes are the same, whether prices go up or whether they come down. There must be some sort of second sight in the electrical industry in this country because instantaneously across the length and breadth of the industry prices are changed simultaneously. What about transmission line cable? Here is an order for 300,000 pounds of No. 2-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member think that in discussing the advisability of adopting this resolution he is quite in order when he goes into the details of certain facts which he thinks prove that there might be a combine in this or that industry? I do not want to restrict the discussion in any way, but I have been listening to the hon. member for some time and apparently he is trying to prove that in one industry there is a combine and that there should be an investigation in another. I think if he reflects upon what he is saying he will agree that when we are discussing the advisability of adopting this resolution which contemplates a change in the act he should not go into the merits or demerits of an investigation or attempt to prove that an investigation should be made in other fields. I should like to hear his comments.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I know that my facts are all true. The minister had told us that it is the hope of the government to make the legislation more effective. This matter has been before the government for some time and apparently they have not been able to act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, apparently a press statement which was made by me on May 1, 1952, has not come to the attention of my hon. friend, and that is why he is making this speech tonight. The fact of the matter is that on May 1, 1952 I announced the appointment of H. Carl Goldenberg, Q.C., of Montreal as special commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act to conduct an investigation with the view of determining whether a combine exists in connection with the manufacture, distribution and sale of electrical wire and cable and related products. I indicated then that extensive inquiries over a considerable period already had been made by the combines investigation commission and that considerable documentary evidence had been obtained through such inquiries. The appointment of Mr. Goldenberg would carry the investigation forward to the stage where hearings would be held. It was expected

Combines Investigation Act that Mr. Goldenberg would conduct private hearings in the near future in several cities in eastern Canada.
My hon. friend knows perfectly well that he raised this matter before in the house when he referred to certain observations which had been made to me by members of the city council of Winnipeg. My file on this goes back to quite early in 1951 and it has been active continuously since that time. When my hon. friend gets up and says we have done nothing about the matter he is far from the facts. This matter is now under active investigation under the present Combines Investigation Act, which it is the purpose of this resolution to supplement. Apart from being out of order, the hon. member through oversight or inadvertence is not stating facts.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I may be
out of order, but there is no question of privilege. If, as the minister says, this matter has been referred to Mr. Goldenberg I shall be happy to resume my seat and give Mr. Goldenberg some information which he may find somewhat useful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there are just a couple of comments which I think should be made in addition to those made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). Before embarking upon my general remarks, one thing took place today about which I should like to make some observation and also suggest to the minister that he has somewhat overlooked the proper rights and interests of members of parliament in connection with this important subject, and I am referring to members on the government side as well as on this side of the house.
This afternoon the minister tabled two copies of the report on the investigation into an alleged combine in the manufacture, distribution and sale of rubber products. When questioned as to whether this would be available for distribution to hon. members, the minister said that it was a bulky document-it certainly is, running to 710 pages-and that copies had been duplicated and made available to all members of the press gallery. But I point out that there are no copies available for all the members of this house.
I think it is proper to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that members of this house should not be overlooked when reports of this kind are tabled in compliance with the terms of a statute and dealing with matters in which hon. members have great 
interest. We find that although at least 50 copies were mimeographed so as to be available to members of the press gallery, no steps were taken to run off a sufficient number to make them available to members of the house. If the minister does not feel that members of the house are more interested and more entitled to these copies than members of the press gallery, perhaps he will feel that we should run at least next in priority and that when he was making 50 copies he might have run off an extra 250 or 260 copies so that members of the house would have it available, particularly when a discussion of this very matter was to take place by way of a resolution and bill to be introduced into the House of Commons.
In making a few general observations on the subject matter of the resolution I wish first to support what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton as to the general position of this party with respect to the subject. I wish to make some general observations without at the present time going into any details. I think it essential in considering legislation dealing with combines, monopolies and restrictive trade practices that specific attention should be devoted to the question of whether or not there should be a review of public policy. I do not retract or depart from previous expressions of mine and expressions of principle which have been made in this house as to the dangers-and they are real dangers-and potential evils of combines, monopolies and other such things.
There has been a conflict in policy for many years. It was the late President Theodore Roosevelt who initiated the antitrust legislation in the United States which dealt with the whole subject of the preservation of small businesses and the danger of trusts and combines getting control of the economy of the country. Nevertheless it was recognized even then, as was said at the time, that the mere fact of bigness is not of itself an offence. I think we must be careful in all our legislation to see to it that the position should never arise where a person or firm, which acts fairly, honestly and openly, which never artificially depresses wages or artificially increases prices, and which acts throughout in accordance with the public interest, might be guilty of a technical offence against our legislation. I think we have to be careful that we do not go that far in this country. I therefore suggest to the minister by way of observation that perhaps there should be more emphasis, either in the title of the legislation or in the title of the commission to be set up, on the question of fairness because it seems to me that what the

legislation should be directed against in the main is practices which are unfair to competitors, to the consumer and to the wage earner.
I for one should like to see somewhat more emphasis placed on the question of whether the practices complained of are, in the particular case, adverse to the public interest. Having said that, I think it is probably not appropriate at this time with Your Honour in the chair to make any detailed comments upon the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee other than to say that, like the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I am very glad indeed to see that the recommendations contain a specific clause recommending the preservation of the provision with regard to the publication of the reports. It seems to me that if the legislation follows out the recommendations of the committee and separates the functions of initial investigation from the functions of the board with respect to a general review of whether or not there has been an offence, then with the board reporting on that aspect of the matter some of the objection to immediate publication which has previously existed is now removed.
That being the case, I am thoroughly in accord with the recommendation that the time for publication of the board's reports be the same as in the present act. Like the hon. member for Eglinton, and perhaps because he and I took some considerable part in the discussion of the legislation last fall arising out of the interim report of the MacQuarrie committee dealing with the practice of resale price maintenance, I should also like to refer to one consideration in that regard. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was frequently and earnestly requested by the official opposition that there should be the fullest opportunity, both in the special committee which was set up and in the discussion in the house, for a full inquiry into this whole field before we rushed into legislation the enactment of which the government had recommended.
We were told there was no necessity for any such inquiry. In particular we said that before the legislation dealing with resale price maintenance was enacted there should be an opportunity for investigation into the danger, which might arise as a result of that legislation, of a resumption of the loss leader practice, and that at the same time as the legislation dealing with resale price maintenance, legislation should be introduced to safeguard merchants, particularly the independent retailer, against the evils of loss leadering. You will recall, sir, that after various threats of closure and various comments that sufficient time had
Combines Investigation Act been taken, although up to that point there had only been two and a half days of discussion in the house, after both our friends to the left as well as the government had sought devices to curtail discussion in the house, the legislation did become law just after Christmas. It is interesting in that regard to find that the MacQuarrie committee, upon whose interim report that legislation was based, now makes a recommendation on this matter to be found on page 64 of their report which has been tabled in the house. It is recommendation No. 3 under the heading "general", and reads as follows:
That the "loss leader" practice should be referred by the minister for thorough study by the proposed agency and board with a view to determining its prevalence and its effects and to recommending to the minister suitable amendment, if necessary, of the act.
That is exactly what we asked to be done last fall. This recommendation of the MacQuarrie committee fully justifies the stand we took last December in the house and at the hearings of the special committee appointed to consider the interim report. That is particularly so when you bear in mind the fact that, as the minister told the house a few days ago, there has been only one investigation and no prosecutions as a result of the legislation passed last fall to which at the time, according to the government propaganda, such importance was attached, and which was designed to curtail so many and such vicious practices.
When you realize that its results have been practically nil, and then find that the MacQuarrie committee now says a study should be made of the loss leader practice, then I think it becomes perfectly clear that the artificial haste with which last fall's legislation was passed was entirely uncalled for, and that the representations of the official opposition with respect to the interests and the position of the independent retailer, and the dangers from which he might suffer as a result of the loss leader practice, were well founded. I hope that opportunities to consider this legislation, important as I recognize it to be, will not be curtailed in the same manner as were opportunities for the consideration of the legislation last fall.
Before Your Honour leaves the chair I would ask the minister to say whether it is intended to refer this legislation to a special committee or one of the standing committees of the house. I should imagine there is probably no standing committee in existence under our rules which is designed to cope with such legislation, and that therefore it might be desirable to refer it to a special committee. I do not imagine this subject will be as controversial as the one last fall,

Combines Investigation Act and I would therefore hope that the study by the committee might be more valuable and, shall I say, more impartial. I feel that considerable advantage to the government, the house and the country might follow from a not time-consuming but thorough study of this legislation by a committee set up for the purpose. I would appreciate it if the minister would say a word on that subject before Your Honour leaves the chair.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order, if I speak now I will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister can deal with it when he does close the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out that on this motion the debate is not closed. The minister has the privilege of speaking only once.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I am not at all sure that I understood the minister's reference to section 498A of the Criminal Code. As I understand the situation, while the amendment proposed would continue to prohibit the practice of discriminatory discounts, it would not prohibit a manufacturer from making one discriminatory discount in one specific case. In other words, I understood him to say that a firm could indulge in a single instance so long as there was no established practice of discriminatory discounts. If that is what the minister meant, then I submit that is the most discriminatory type of all. The idea of permitting one instance of such discount to any commercial organization which places that organization in a preferred trading position over its competitors is, to my mind, the most discriminatory of all. If that is the effect of the amendment which is to be made, then this section should certainly be reviewed. It should certainly never be written into the law.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I should answer one or two of the questions which the rules of the house prevented me from answering when the Speaker was in the chair. The only request for the privilege of making representations before the committee was that received from the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I am informed that that body would prefer to make representations before the banking and commerce committee of the Senate. The thought was that we might deal with the bill on second reading in the house, and then refer it to the committee of the Whole. Then when the bill went to the Senate it might go before the banking and commerce committee of that 

body. Representations might be made there by any of those who would be interested in making them.
With regard to the matter that was raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West, might I suggest that I referred to the particular point she has referred to in order to make as full a disclosure as possible of the contents of the bill that will follow the passage of this resolution. I believe she will agree that it is difficult to discuss intelligently the provisions of a clause of a bill until we have the printed bill before us. If she could bear with the matter until we have the printed bill distributed, I think we could have quite a full discussion of her point in discussing the clause of the bill which provides for a certain change in section 498A of the Criminal Code.
There is only one other point which I believe I should deal with at this time, and that is the matter of the distribution of copies of the report to the members of the house. I must say that I am in a somewhat embarrassing position, not having sufficient copies of this report to distribute. If the hon. member for Kamloops has had, as I see he has, a chance of reading the report or at least thumbing through it, he will see there are over 700 pages of single-spaced typewriting. It is quite a task to receive a report of that sort, digest it to the point where a press release could be prepared', and prepare the necessary copies in volume to distribute to the members within the statutory period which is provided in the act. We shall be able, I believe within the course of the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours, to provide each of the groups in this house with a substantial number of copies. I do not think we shall have sufficient for every member of the house to have one, but enough to supply all those who would be interested in reading it. We hope to have that shortly, as I indicated in my remarks earlier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate what the minister has just said about the difficulty of running off a large number of copies of a closely typewritten report, so I am not going to persist in this matter. I do point out, though, that I have looked at the report and noticed that the copies are mimeographed. While there is some physical labour involved, it seems to me, from my very lengthy acquaintance with the mimeograph machine, that it is just a matter of turning the handle the requisite number of times to run off the requisite number of copies. We country lawyers are not always able to have the up-to-date electrical machines, but I am told that the machine to which I am referring is old-fashioned, and the minister's department would no doubt have

the up-to-date electrical type whereby the labour would be substantially reduced.
I should like to ask the minister some questions about the nature of the proposed legislation. These questions arise out of the summary of the recommendations of the Mac-Quarrie committee, starting at page 60 of that report. I ask him at this stage because I should like to make some suggestions as to things which I think should be embodied in the legislation if that has not already been done. I first turn to page 60 and refer to that passage where it is stated in subparagraph (ii) of subsection 3 of section 2 that the recommendations of the research agency should be presented to the board, that is the administrative board. My hope is, if that is carried into legislation, that it will not be confined to presenting the results to the board, but that it will also present the results to the minister. In other words I think at that stage, when the investigation research agency has made a study and is making the report, that report should not go only to the board but also to the minister.
I make that suggestion for a reason which I think was very cogently put by the member for Eglinton. In legislation of this type, it is not only a matter of having machinery of adequate design; it is a matter of the drive behind the administration when abuses are suspected and are being investigated. While I realize the necessity for some privacy before the publication of the report, which is now preserved as a result of a division of the two functions, nevertheless I do think that even at that stage the report should be available to the minister; not only available because he could get it upon request, but that it should be presented to him as a matter of course, so he could immediately give it the necessary amount of drive for whatever further steps were considered necessary. I feel that the same thing applies, and for the same reason with respect to heading (iv) under this paragraph we are now considering, "To present the results of its studies to the board." I think that report should not be confined to the board but should also be presented to the minister. Is the minister able to say whether the legislation will embrace only the presentation of these reports to the board?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I really think we are going to waste a great deal of time and create misunderstandings if we attempt to discuss the details of the bill without having the bill before us. I welcome my hon. friend's suggestions, but I do not think any attempt should be made tonight to discuss them now. The mere perusal of the bill will clear up 55704-178
Combines Investigation Act many of these questions that we can now discuss only in an atmosphere of complete obscurity. If I make any references to the bill, I cannot produce the text and my hon. friend cannot see it. This really is not the purpose of the resolution. The resolution is only to get authority to introduce a bill. What he is now trying to do is discuss the detail of the bill.
There is one general principle, however, which arises from the point my hon. friend has made, namely that where you divide up the two functions of investigation upon the one hand and adjudication upon the other, which are now discharged by the commissioner himself, it would seem, prima facie at least, that there should not be intervention by any other person or official between the discharge of those two functions, because the purpose of the investigation is to gather together a body of evidence upon the basis of which adjudication is to be made. After the investigation is completed under this proposed new method the evidence goes before the board; and the board, on the basis of that evidence, adjudicates. What my hon. friend is suggesting-and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong-is that this evidence, instead of being submitted to the board who will properly exercise quasi-judicial functions with respect to it, is to be turned over to the minister. For what purpose, might I ask my hon. friend? For interim arrangements of some sort before there is an adjudication of any kind? Or what has my hon. friend in mind?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has not stated my proposal quite accurately. I would put it this way. In addition to being turned over to the board for the purpose he has described, I suggest that it should be turned over to the minister, not to the minister instead of to the board but to the minister as well as the board. I feel that the minister should be made fully aware of what is going on at every stage, not only in a general way but in a particular way. I think he should know in exact detail just what is taking place and just what stage every one of these investigations has reached. It is for that reason that I feel the reports under both these headings should reach him at the same time they reach the board, so he will be in a position to call up, in whatever time he thinks is reasonable, and say "With reference to this report, how are you making out? How are you doing? What do you think of it?" instead of perhaps having it drawn to his attention only when the board has reached some conclusion or when he hears of it accidentally. It is just that sort of thing my suggestion is designed to accomplish. I think the minister
2824	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act ought to be informed in detail at each and every stage so that the necessary drive can be given to these things throughout.
I appreciate the point that perhaps it is not advisable to get into a detailed question and answer discussion without having the bill before us. I had hoped the minister could indicate, in general, whether or not these suggestions were or were not embodied in the proposed legislation but I will not press that point. I want to continue, however, to make a certain recommendation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend a question in order to get clear in my mind just what he is driving at. My hon. friend says the minister should exercise drive in this matter. Should he drive the board to reach a conclusion, or to reach a conclusion of guilt or a conclusion of innocence? Does the hon. member think the minister should do that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know whether the minister is trying to lead me into a trap but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is not. Of course I do not mean either of those things. But obviously there are going to be certain cases where the first report discloses a matter which is not of great seriousness. Under my suggestion the minister would be presented with that report at the same time as the board is presented with it; and I would assume that in that case the minister would say "This is not such a pressing matter", and he would not interest himself in it greatly. But it might be that another report would disclose on the face of it abuses of an extremely serious nature. In that sort of case I would expect the minister to say to the board: "Look; I want you to give this matter your immediate attention, over and above everything else."
I am not saying he should suggest to them what their conclusion or their recommendation should be; but here is a case in which the minister-with his knowledge of affairs as they go on and with the responsibility he has to the government, to the house and to the nation to check abuses-I think might perfectly properly say:	"To me this case
looks like a more serious matter than the other one. I want you to give this your most urgent attention." Unless he gets these reports as soon as they are prepared and delivered to the board, it seems to me he will not be in a position at all to exercise that sort of drive. I do not think the minister really thought I was suggesting that he should indicate what the conclusion would be. I have suggested nothing of that sort at all.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I suggest that perhaps we are anticipating a discussion which could more properly take place in committee on
[Mr. Fulton.J

the bill, or perhaps at some other stage such as the committee on banking and commerce. The resolution stage is one at which members can make suggestions. This resolution provides for only five things, namely for the appointment of a director who would take over the administration and the making of inquiries; for the appointment of a deputy director and other persons; for the establishment of a commission to be known as the restrictive trade practices commission; for the appointment of temporary substitute members; and for the salaries, remuneration and expenses of these persons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I agree or concur, if I may say so, in your point. I have indicated to the minister that I did so, and that I did not intend to pursue further questions and answers on the details of the proposed legislation. But since the resolution is based on the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee I should like to deal just briefly with two

I think it is two-of their other recommendations which one would assume the legislation would in some form or other carry into effect.
I refer to page 63, where we find the heading "Tariff, patent and other remedial action". I am sorry the minister has not the same page number as that given in the copy I have. It is under heading "B. Remedies". It is the third remedy, namely "Tariff, patent and other remedial action". I think perhaps it would be sufficient for me to say that the committee recommends that the use of the tariff and patent clauses of the act should be given special consideration in cases presented before the board, and makes other similar recommendations.
What I wanted to know from the minister, not in any detail but simply in general, is whether that recommendation itself is being carried into the legislation to be based on this report. It seems to me to be an exceedingly important recommendation. I think there are large numbers of Canadians who feel that, behind the shelter of the tariff, there are certain abuses in respect of keeping up prices unnecessarily on the part of those industries which no longer need tariffs as protection in the sense that they are infant industries, but which now find the tariff a convenient method of keeping prices up, whereas there may be others in even the same field who need the tariff as protection in the sense that they are infant industries. Is there any means, by legislation or otherwise, of preventing companies from keeping up prices behind tariff protection which they do not need and to an extent which is harmful to the consumer?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I can well understand the anxiety of the hon. member as to the contents of the bill; but unless unanimous consent is given to the discussion of details such as those now being discussed, I cannot permit a reply by the minister. Citation 439 of Beauchesne's third edition is specific on the point. It says;
The object of the resolution recommended by the crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure. The details of the projected measure are not then disclosed and debate is confined to the resolution which should not be lengthy, although care must be taken that the terms used are sufficiently wide to cover the whole of the bill which will be subsequently introduced.
It seems to me that the place for the hon. member to carry on the discussion which he now is anticipating is after this resolution passes and the bill is introduced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you, sir, rule that this discussion is out of order I shall submit without further attempt to carry it on, but I am a little surprised at your ruling, if I may say so, because I am not asking to discuss specific provisions of the bill. My intention was to suggest things that should be in the legislation, and to do it at this stage for the reason that we all know it is so difficult to get amendments to legislation, for obvious reasons, after it has been introduced. It was for that purpose that I thought it might be useful to have a preliminary discussion on the report and the recommendations which we understand are being carried into law. Perhaps I have said enough on the subject to indicate to the minister that I feel the legislation should contain provision to carry those recommendations into effect. In view of your ruling, sir, I will rest it there.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must point out to the hon. member that whatever he thinks should be contained in the bill would be welcome in this discussion, but when it comes to the minister offering replies, I think it would be difficult for him to do so unless he disclosed the details of the bill. If he does reply, how can I prevent another hon. member discussing the reply he has given? We would then be into a debate which would be out of order. Citation 439 is clear on that point.
If the hon. member wants to carry on with suggestions as to what he thinks should be in the bill, he may do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am through for the time being.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to say a few words in support of this resolution. I wish to say at the outset that I am pleased to see that the stand taken by some of those who sat in the committee last fall has been greatly modified. Perhaps conditions 55704-178 i
Combines Investigation Act since that time have convinced them that the combines committee that sat last fall did a fine job. I am firmly convinced in my own mind that it did. Today if you look at the price tags on household appliances and compare them with the price tags of six months ago, you will find there is quite a difference. I remember that in the statement I made in the house last session I compared the prices of automobile tires in the United States and in Canada, tires manufactured by the same company. They were about $19 in the United States and about $37.50 in Canada.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps the hon. member was not here when I interrupted the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The same ruling I made with respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North applies to the hon. member for Charlotte, which was that one should not go into the field of industry to show where combines might or might not have existed, and the remedies which might be applied to whatever situation may exist in Canada at the moment. This resolution calls for the appointment of a director to take over the administration of the act. If there is something the hon. member would like to discuss he will have an opportunity to do so when the bill comes before the house.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I bow to your ruling, but I start off again on another course. I well remember that in the committee suggestions were made that the small businessman in this country would be completely put out of business when this legislation went into effect. Well, we have had a few months to view the situation. I find that the same small businessman who was in business last December is carrying on today. I feel that the legislation before the house should be supported by every hon. member because we are all convinced that combines are not for the benefit of the general public.
At this time I should like to put on the record, if I may, an editorial that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of Tuesday, May 13, which is not very long ago, under the heading; "It's still price-fixing", and which reads:
However thin one slices it, the so-called fair trade bill sausage now turned over to the Senate for sampling is still price-fixing.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but he will understand that if I let him discuss the bills and the proceedings of the committee last year, we shall enter into a debate which will be completely extraneous to this resolution, and that I cannot allow. Shall the resolution carry?
2826	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development


Victor Quelch: Is it the intention to enact legislation to embody the main recommendations contained in the report, or merely to deal with the separation of the functions of investigation and research?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I indicated in my remarks, we intend to embody not only the separation of the functions but the greater part of the main recommendations of the report. I listed those in my remarks. I could go over them again, if my hon. friend wishes, but I am sure he heard them the first time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have one question that I think is sufficiently general for the minister to be permitted to reply. Will the amendment proposed to the Combines Investigation Act have the result of making any changes in the definition of an offence or what is a restrictive trade practice?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is to say-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. That is anticipating another debate. If the minister replies yes, he discloses a detail of the bill; if he replies no, and the hon. member wants to argue the point and other hon. members want to do likewise, then we shall get into a debate on a question which is of no concern to us at the moment.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 306, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OP RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
National parks branch-
375. Branch administration, $23,545.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Is this the first item?


Louis-René Beaudoin: At the last sitting of the committee of supply we had a discussion on this item. We had a discussion on national parks. There are still a few items connected with national parks; they go from 375 to 380. The first is a vote of $23,545 for branch administration.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not wish to delay the passage of this item, but there are one or two comments I should like to make about the national parks, particularly the mountain national park in the Rockies. We have in the Rockies some of the finest terrain in the world, not only for climbing in the summer
[The Chairman..]

but for skiing or ski-mountaineering in the winter. The one defect or problem in regard to the parks at the moment is their inaccessibility.
There has been a general theory that the parks should be maintained in their natural state, a theory to which no one can take serious exception. Yet it is very little good having a vast territory maintained in its natural state if it is inaccessible. The vastnesses of Tibet and the mountains behind the Karakoram may be very beautiful and may have wonderful scenic possibilities; but if they are inaccessible they are of little use to mankind.
The same applies to our national parks. The criticism has been made that if we render the national parks more accessible-that is, those of the national parks more than five hundred yards from a motor highway or a line of railway-the natural beauty of those parks will have been destroyed. To this I take grave objection. I believe that today we are passing from the economy of the horse to the economy of the motor vehicle. Obviously we cannot build roads into national parks through mountains without extremely heavy expense. But if those roads were built we would possibly open up the parks only on a comparatively limited scale. There are a number of places where roads must be built. The valley of the Ten Peaks is an example where a beautiful road has been built. Then there is the Banff-Jasper highway, the road into Little Yoho, the road up to the Emerald lakes, as well as many others which do open up beautiful terrain for the benefit of the tourist.
But they open up only a postage-stamp sized area of the great national heritage which is ours. Today, with the tremendous costs of a pack train, and the great expense of equipping a horse transport into areas of our national parks-and I am referring to Yoho and Jasper parks on both sides of the continental divide, as well as Banff national park -except to a few fortunate persons who may be members of organizations such as the Alpine club, we are precluding the vast proportion of our people from seeing the parks at all.
I suggest to the minister that today the best access to the parks is by air. If small airstrips could be built at different places in our great wilderness, it would be advantageous in the matter of viewing our parks. The Canadian Pacific Railway likes to advertise them as fifty Switzerlands in one. Well, they may be fifty Switzerlands, but fifty Switzerlands will do one no good unless he can see them. And they will do Canadians no good, or our visitors from elsewhere in the world, unless they can be seen.

Therefore I should like to see some method by which the most remote parts of the parks may be visited by people of moderate means. The only way those people may reach the remote places is by air. It may sound strange, but to equip the very smallest pack train for two people today would cost in the neighbourhood of $100 a day, and to go any considerable distance it would cost a great deal more than that. Without the assistance of a guide-and they are very scarce-there is the impossibility of travelling far from the beaten track.
If we are to develop our great heritage I suggest the department should encourage the construction of airstrips in the national parks, so that people of moderate means could reach them and see what there is to see. The criticism has been made that this would open the parks to undesirable types of travellers, and that it might deplete the lakes which at present are teeming with some of the finest game fish in the world. Attention has been called to the fire hazard, and there has been the objection that to facilitate air travel in the parks might damage the wildlife.
If these airstrips are made available, then at the same time they are made available to game wardens and park wardens to an even greater extent than to any person who might have predatory instincts. The policing of the parks would be much simpler than at the present time, when the wardens have to trek in many miles and for many hours to see whether someone has hurt himself or has brought in illicit weapons to hunt in the park. With airstrips placed throughout the parks firefighting would be made much easier. Any careless individual can start a fire, but it takes an organization to put it out. With airstrips we would be able to get over the mountains and your machinery for fighting fire would be greatly enhanced.
I suggest that the government seriously consider the construction of airstrips throughout the parks as a means of developing this great heritage. It would be infinitely cheaper than highway construction and would provide easier access than would be possible by foot or on horseback. If the record of flying in the Rocky mountains up to date is any criterion, it would be much safer.
I really love these national parks and I have travelled more than 2,000 miles through them by ski and on foot. We have a heritage which is unique in all the world. It is infinitely superior, it is wilder and more rugged than the parks in the United States, although their individual mountains may be higher. We should take steps to see that these parks are made available to people
2, 1952	2827
Supply-Resources and Development of moderate means. We have these wildernesses but they do not do anyone any good.
The tourist comes to the big hotel to play golf, to look at a fashion show or to attend a convention. Many of them are willing to pay $20 a day to stop at one of these large hotels run by the railroads. But such a person knows nothing of the real beauty of our national parks, and he will not until facilities are made available for him to learn something about them. We are still operating these parks more or less as closed areas.
To me commercialism is anathema. I hate to see commercial signposts, and would be willing to do anything to prevent any type of commercialism because I know many objectionable things have happened already; but this heritage should be made available to Canadians and to visitors at reasonable rates. I suggest that the construction of airstrips provides the easiest and best way of making our national parks more completely available.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to what I was saying on Thursday evening when you advised me to wait until this item was before the committee. I was referring to the damage done in our national parks by wild animals. The farmers in these different districts have suffered tremendous damage from deer and elk. The provincial governments say they have nothing to do with it, and I am afraid the dominion government will say the same thing. The farmers are left holding the bag.
If there is going to be a conference in the near future between the dominion and provincial governments I think this is something worth while to discuss, to see what can be done. If the dominion or provincial governments cannot feed these elk and deer I do not think they should expect the poor farmer to feed them. The number of animals in the reserve should be cut down.
I do not want to repeat what I said on Thursday night when I was advised to wait for this item. I have a petition here signed by 55 people who have had their crops ruined. They were not even allowed to shoot these animals when they came near their crops. This has been an exceptionally bad year in my province because half the crop was not threshed until this spring. These poor fellows had no crop at all to thresh. I should like to quote from an article in the Winnipeg Tribune as follows:
Settlers in outlying areas of Swan river valley should receive some compensation for the loss that resulted from deer and elk eating and trampling crops. The attitude of the provincial government in evading all responsibility in this connection is neither impressive nor fair.
2828	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development
The fact is that the crops of many settlers were totally destroyed. The majority of these new farmers were dependent on the spring harvest to pay their winter's bills and finance this year's program.
The case for the settlers is a convincing one. Deer are the property of the province, and under provincial law the farmer cannot shoot the animals to protect his crop. He had to sit idly by this winter and see the fruits of a year's work being destroyed by game.
I do not want to labour the point, but I think a solution could be found if the matter were taken up by the dominion and provincial representatives when they next meet. An effort should be made to control these marauding deer and elk in Manitoba.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member for Selkirk, but out on the prairies we have a different problem. They have an organization known as Ducks Unlimited. This may be a fine thing for the man with a shotgun but it is not so good for the farmer who is trying to raise crops. I have seen hundreds of acres of crops destroyed in a few days when thousands of ducks have come in.
I do not think there is a finer playground in the world than our national parks in Alberta, whether it be Jasper, Waterton Lakes or some of the others. I have spent a good deal of time fishing in the rivers and lakes of the national parks. I have always found good fishing around Jasper and Water-ton Lakes, but apparently the fishing around Banff is exceptionally poor. I have heard some caustic remarks made by United States people about the fishing in the vicinity of Banff. I realize that this applies to the lakes and rivers that can be reached by motorcar and that if you travel far enough from the highway you will find good fishing. Is the same work in restocking the lakes and rivers being done around Banff as apparently is being done at Jasper and Waterton Lakes?


Mr. Winters:: The quick answer to that is yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to ask the minister a few questions with reference to Fundy national park in New Brunswick. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for York West regarding what a splendid boon our parks are. We are very proud of Fundy national park. The scenery there compares more than favourably with any park in Canada. The great difficulty is to get to the park. The roads leading to the national park are very poor with the result that very few people, particularly tourists, are taking advantage of it. This is a new park, the last one to be opened in Canada. That may be one reason for the condition of the roads; but it has now been open for two or three


years and I know that United States tourists who hope to go to Fundy national park drive a few miles over a dusty road and then turn back.
I should like to ask the minister if the federal government is doing anything to urge the provincial government to improve the roads. I know it is not the responsibility of the federal government to build roads outside the park; and I commend the minister for the building of some splendid roads in the park. As soon as one strikes the park limits one has very good wheeling. I should like to ask the minister whether there is any agreement with the provincial government for the construction of roads. If there is not, I would ask the federal government to take up that matter with the provincial government to see if something cannot be done. The hon. member for York West spoke about airstrips in national parks. That will be the only way to get into ours if something is not done about the roads.
I should also like to refer to the matter of conservation. I am rather surprised that two hon. members should suggest that there is too much wildlife in the national parks. We are very pleased that the wildlife is increasing in Fundy park in New Brunswick. As a matter of fact it is one of the finest moose areas in our province. We are hoping the moose will increase. For some years we have had a game law in New Brunswick prohibiting the killing of moose, but there is a parasite that is perhaps killing more moose than are killed by hunters. It has occurred to me that possibly the government might experiment in this national park in some way to see if they cannot preserve the moose. I fear the day may come in our province as well as in other provinces when the moose will be much like the caribou. They will be a thing of the past. I should like to have the minister's comment on these matters. First of all I should like to know whether any effort is being made to urge the provincial government to provide better roads leading to our national park in New Brunswick, and I should also like the minister to deal with the conservation of wildlife in national parks.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I should deal first with the matter of Fundy park, and then answer some of the other questions raised. I was very pleased to hear the hon. member's remarks about Fundy national park. I take quite a personal interest in it, having had the privilege of participating in the opening. I also had the pleasure of visiting it last year, at which time I drove in from the west and left it toward the east. I found the roads in both directions to be quite good. As my hon. friend has said, the road in the park is

now paved and it is a first class road. There have been some informal discussions with officials of the provincial government about the roads leading to the park, but as my hon. friend intimated there is no way we can bring pressure upon them or tell them what to do with respect to their highways. However, I am sure they realize the value of the asset to them and have in mind the importance of providing good opportunities to enter the park.
With respect to the problem in Riding Mountain national park, once the animals get outside the limits of the park they are free game and come under the laws and regulations of provincial governments. Our wildlife officers have been keeping in close touch with the situation in Riding Mountain national park. There have been discussions with the officials of the Manitoba government about the subject, and in fact there will be discussions again this year. Permits- can be obtained from the provincial government to shoot animals, and I am sure the provincial government officials will be most co-operative in that respect. Surveys were carried out in the park in March, 1952 by our chief mam-malogist, and it was indicated then that the population of elk was about 4,560, a decrease of some 3-6 per cent from the estimated population for 1951. The provincial game administration reported that 1,355 elk were killed outside the park during last year's season by hunters whose licences have been returned. Only 70 per cent of the licences have been returned so far so the probable total killed would be about 2,000 elk to date.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask a couple of questions with respect to the details on page 435. There are a few new items this year. There is one for plumbers, an amount of $19,750, and another item of $13,000 for shovel operators which is also new. Can the minister say whether the plumbers are permanent-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. These details refer to items 377 and 378. We are now on item 375.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I thought we had reached those items.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Not yet, because the hon. member for York South wanted to speak about parks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National parks and historic sites services-
376. Administration, operation and maintenance, $3,646,974.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Items 376 and 377 have to do with historic sites.


Mr. Charlton:: On several occasions I have mentioned Chiefswood, the house which was
Supply-Resources and Development the birthplace of Pauline Johnson, the famous poetess. I think it deserves some consideration and recognition from the historic sites and monuments board. I understood the minister to say the other night that the board is now meeting.


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the minister
would not think it just that the residence of Pauline Johnson should receive some consideration. We are very proud of it in Brant county. I know the Indian people are very proud of it. They feel it is worthy of some recognition. It is now owned by the Six Nations council. It was left to them by the estate to be used as an old people's home. With very little money it could be renovated and made into a nice tourist attraction, a place where the craft work of the Indians could be sold to tourists. It would be a wonderful spot to show some of the handicrafts of the Indian people. I ask the minister to consider the matter again. Perhaps the board might see fit to make a grant toward the maintenance of Chiefswood.


Robert Henry Winters: I informed the committee on Thursday that the national historic sites and monuments board was then sitting. It has now concluded its sittings, but its report has not yet been prepared. I understand that at least on one occasion they have discussed the site the hon. member has brought up here, but at the moment I do not have the report of the national historic sites and monuments board on it.


Mr. Dinsdale:: When this matter was last discussed in the house I asked certain questions about the peace garden grant, and also about the increased rates for tourist campers. I wonder if the minister is going to comment on those.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the peace garden, I must say that I believe it typifies, as well as anything with which I have had to do, the fact that economies make a good topic for popular discussion but when they are reduced to a particular item they are very unpopular indeed. Perhaps I should tell hon. members something of the background of the international peace garden, and then leave it to them and to the people of Canada generally to judge whether or not they would wish to contribute an additional $15,000 to this project this year in the light of the level of taxation prevailing to meet the demands and requirements upon the government.
The establishment of the international peace garden at Turtle Mountain was largely

Supply-Resources and Development the outcome of a convention of the national association of gardeners held at Toronto in the summer of 1929. Delegates from all parts of Canada to that convention agreed that it would be an excellent idea to have an international peace garden astride the Canadian-United States border, as near to the centre of the North American continent as possible, this undertaking to symbolize the friendship, long and unbroken, existing between Canada and the United States; and that such a development on the boundary would be a meeting place of legionnaires of both countries and various international societies.
Following various organizational meetings held in both countries a potential garden area of 2,340 acres was established in 1932, 888 acres in the state of North Dakota and 1,452 acres in Manitoba. This latter area was donated by the Manitoba government, being formerly part of the Turtle Mountain forest reserve. The formal dedication ceremony took place on July 14, 1942, before a group of 50,000 people who bore witness to the solemn pledge of two nations who would continue forever the peace which has existed between them for more than a century. A cairn about eight feet high, built of native stone gathered from both sides of the boundary and bearing a plaque with the inscription "To God and His glory we two nations dedicate this garden and pledge ourselves that as long as men shall live we shall not take up arms against one another" was unveiled on that occasion.
The original idea for financing this project put forward by the first board of directors was to raise approximately $5 million over a twenty-year period through weekly contributions by school children and adults scattered over the whole country, but the depression of the thirties resulted in this plan being abandoned.
The federal government, through the Department of Mines and Resources, has assisted financially in the development of the Canadian section of the peace garden by means of funds provided under the following votes: Vote 459, supplementary estimates 1936-37, $12,000; Vote 315, supplementary estimates 1937-38, $10,000; Vote 537, supplementary estimates 1938-39, $10,000; Vote 518, supplementary estimates 1939-40, $10,000; Vote 520, supplementary estimates 1939-40, $10,000. The additional vote for 1939-40 was to be devoted entirely to forestry conservation and reforestation under the provincial government. The grant was discontinued in 1940 and the reasons expressed by Mr. Crerar at the time were as follows:
That in view of the war, and the consequent heavy financial burden which this country is called
[Mr. Winters. J
upon to bear in connection with our preparedness, it was considered that the department would not be warranted in asking for further funds.
The grant was resumed in 1949 and continued to 1951-52 inclusive with the following amounts being provided: Vote 221, main estimates 1949-50, $15,000; Vote 369, main estimates 1950-51, $15,000; Vote 388, main estimates 1951-52, $15,000. That makes a total contribution to date on the part of the federal government to this project of $97,000. In addition the federal government has helped with materials, such as logs, nursery stock and of course advice from our officials in the national parks branch.
After an item for $15,000 had been included in the estimates for 1951-52 for the international peace graden, I wrote the president of the peace garden and informed him that I was extremely doubtful as to what further contributions he could expect in future years. This letter was written bearing in mind the international situation. When the estimates for 1952-53 were under consideration I could not recommend the inclusion of funds for the international peace garden in view of Canada's heavy commitments for defence and the resulting necessity for the federal government to curtail expenditures.
Moreover, the federal government is presently responsible for the operation of a very beautiful national park in Manitoba, the Riding Mountain national park, covering an area of 1,148 square miles. Over the years this park has required the expenditure of considerable public funds, and I presume it will continue to do so. For example, last year a total of $504,538 was spent on maintenance, operation, and construction; this year a further amount of $825,251 is being requested for these purposes.
There are also two national historic sites and parks maintained by the taxpayers of Canada. They are Fort Prince of Wales historic park at Churchill and Lower Fort Garry historic site, outside Winnipeg. When one considers these investments in national parks and, in addition, the $97,000 the federal government has already contributed toward the international peace garden, I am sure the taxpayers of Canada will conclude that the province of Manitoba is not being overlooked in this respect.
The hon. member also asked about the fees to campers in parks, and at the same time asked whether or not those parks were selfsupporting or if the fees were raised as a means of making them self-supporting. I can inform the committee that last year the total expenditure on national parks in Canada was $6,357,576.59, and the total revenue was $933,498.20. It will be seen, therefore, that

there is quite a deficit of about $5-5 million on park operations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: While the minister is at that, could he give us the revenue by parks?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I have it here, Mr. Chairman. I shall give the figures in even thousands. They are as follows:
Banff	$341,000
Cape Breton	 6,000
Elk Island	 136,000
Fundy	 14,000
Georgian Bay	 257
Glacier	 671
Jasper	 93,000
Kootenay	 73,000
Mount Revelstoke	 148
Point Pelee	 15,000
Prince Albert	 57,000
Prince Edward Island	 9,000
Riding Mountain	 116,000
St. Lawrence islands	 200
Waterton lakes	 38,000
Yoho	 28,000
The hon. member for Brandon also asked about camping rates, and mentioned that anyone who leased a property, that is someone who had a house built on a property, was in a better position financially than a camper who leased his property by the day, by the week or on a short-term basis. He mentioned that, in the first instance, the property holder paid only about $40 for the year. But I should point out that the facts of the case are that, as to the camper, he is provided with a considerable number of facilities: the use of central cooking facilities equipped with wood stoves and electric lights; the use of tables and benches on which to eat; free garbage collection; free central water and sewer facilities and free fuel; whereas with respect to the man who rents a lot and builds a cottage on it, he must build his own cottage and provide his own fuel, light and other incidental expenses. In addition, he has to bid successfully on a lot before he can build a cottage. The average bid accepted on lots at Riding Mountain park is about $75. In addition the following average annual payments have to be made: lot rental, $11; water charges, $5; garbage disposal, $3 or an additional total of $19. Therefore I think the camper who pays the fee on a daily or weekly basis gets full value for his money and is farther ahead, as far as expenses go, than the man who has a permanent cottage on a lot which he rents annually.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The question asked by the hon. member for Peterborough West is now in order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask the minister about these plumbers. Are they on the permanent list now? If so, why? What work do they do under this new item?
2, 1952
Supply-Resources and Development


Robert Henry Winters: These plumbers are not new in the estimates. This is just a different way of showing them this year. Last year they were shown as temporaries and casuals, in another category, whereas this year they have been rearranged and shown in another part of the estimates. There has been no substantial change in the item.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As to sailmakers, tractor
operators and shovel operators, are they in the same category?


Robert Henry Winters: The same thing applies to them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What do you use a sailmaker there for?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: To make sails.


Robert Henry Winters: He makes tarpaulins, mends tents and does a variety of other miscellaneous things.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is just repair work?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for his detailed reply to my question. Just before the item passes, there is one further point I should like to make with regard to the peace garden.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am just wondering how far the hon. member can go with regard to the peace garden. There is no item in the estimates for the peace garden. In the general discussion he made his plea, and the minister has replied. How much longer can we carry on the discussion of an item which is not before the committee and will not be before it for the reason which has been given, namely that the vote has been excluded?


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was interested in what the minister had to say with regard to the income from the park at Point Pelee. Can he give the committee the cost to the government of that park?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. The total expenditure at Point Pelee last year was $48,128.38.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering and water resources branch-
385. To provide for studies and surveys of the Red river basin in Canada, including Assiniboine and Pembina rivers. $255,553.
William Scottie Bryce: Can the minister tell us a little bit about what is being done with regard to the Red river?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, a full reply to the hon. member's question would be quite long, but I should be glad to send him a full reply.
2832	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development


William Scottie Bryce: That will be all right. That will save time. That is in connection with the flooding?


Robert Henry Winters: It is with regard to the Red river flooding investigations which are being carried on by this division.


William Scottie Bryce: I should be pleased to have a copy from the minister in order to save him from having to read it.


Robert Henry Winters: I should be glad to send a copy to the hon. member.


William Scottie Bryce: Thank you.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a minute. Are we to have nothing at all said on this item? It seems to me it is a most important matter. Can the minister not indicate just briefly what is being done, without necessarily reading a full report?


Robert Henry Winters: The committee will recall that this is a study of the conditions surrounding the flooding of greater Winnipeg and studies undertaken to determine what, if any, measures can be taken to reduce the hazard of flooding there in the future.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are they joint studies with the United States authorities?


Robert Henry Winters: We have had a number of consultations with the United States authorities and there is the closest liaison there. I should be glad to give an up-to-date progress report, if that is what hon. members of the committee wish.
The first part of it deals with the main stem and eastern tributaries of the Red river.
Hydrographic survey of the Red river from lake Winnipeg to the international boundary, a distance of 155 miles, has been completed. Cross-sections were taken at 200-foot intervals through the city and suburbs, at 800 to 1000-foot intervals north of the city and at 1,000-foot intervals south of the city. All cross-sections have been plotted and standard hydrographic plans have been prepared showing river bed and bank contours with profiles of river bed, normal water level, 1950 flood level and general prairie level. Similar plans have been prepared of the Assiniboine river from its mouth to St. James compiled from hydrographic survey carried out by the greater Winnipeg diking board. From St. James to Headingley, the Assiniboine river has been cross-sectioned and the results have been plotted.
Surveys have been carried out east of Winnipeg over possible diversion routes. These surveys covered various possible intake


and outlet locations and provided for location of routes both east and west of the town of Transcona.
Levels have been taken throughout the city of St. Boniface and the Winnipeg suburbs, and with the information available for the city of Winnipeg, a contour map of the greater Winnipeg area has been prepared.
A topographic survey of the valley extending beyond the 1950 flood elevations has been completed and plans of this survey drawn.
A reconnaissance of subsoil conditions has been made over the possible diversion routes east of Winnipeg by wash bore drill and electrical resistivity apparatus. Several core holes were drilled by rotary diamond drill at locations indicated by wash bore where rock might be encountered.
A rotary core diamond drill was employed along the river between the Bergen cut-off and Lockport covering that area commonly referred to as Lister's rapids. From the results obtained the bedrock profile along the river bottom has been plotted.
A reconnaissance survey and a subsurface exploration by wash bore drill has been carried out over a possible diversion route from the Assiniboine river towards lake Winnipeg through the west end of the city.
A topographical survey is in progress for the eastern tributaries diversion. This diversion would tap the Roseau, the Rat, the Seine rivers and Joubert creek, and it would virtually control the greater percentage of the drainage basin on the east side of the Red river in Canada. It would divert the runoff from this area by means of dikes and a small canal to enter the Red river near lake Winnipeg by either Cook's creek or Devil's creek.
Miscellaneous field surveys are in progress to obtain data on all bridge crossings, subways and railroad grades within the greater Winnipeg area.
The staff of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, which has been assisting this department in the Red river basin investigation, has continued its contribution in the surveys and studies of the Assiniboine and Pembina rivers.
A survey of the Assiniboine valley within Manitoba for the purpose of determining river flow characteristics, flood routing and valley storage capacities at high river stages has been completed.
Detailed topographic surveys with subsurface exploration by wash bore drill have been completed for floodway diversion routes of the Assiniboine river to lake Manitoba via both east and west of Portage la Prairie. Subsequent office study of this diversion

scheme is well advanced, and a design of floodways with appurtenant works is being carried out for flows of 10,000, 25,000 and
40,000	c.f.s. Preliminary estimates of quantities and costs are being derived.
This is a long statement. Shall I continue?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
want to condemn the minister to reading a long report. I thought perhaps he could give us a summary. What interests me still more is whether the minister can summarize in a general way the investigation work which is going on, and most important just what decisions, if any, have been made as to what is to be done.


Robert Henry Winters: The surveys are still being carried out. We are still doing some drilling on various parts of the rivers to determine the type of bottoms and various other findings that are required to determine the whole structure of the countryside with which we are concerned. Most of the field work has now been done. It is being compiled in the form of engineering data and office studies. We are hopeful that a report will be available by the end of this year. That was the target date established when the survey was undertaken, and we are still hoping that this date will be possible of attainment.


Mr. Weir:: This whole subject out there is not a matter that can be dealt with briefly, or brought into a very small report. In the first place, we have had the experience arising out of the Winnipeg flood of 1948 and the undertakings that followed as a means of protecting the city of Winnipeg. May I say to the committee that the recurring serious flood problem of Manitoba has not been on the Red river but rather on the Assiniboine river, and more particularly from the area in the neighbourhood of Portage la Prairie east. Here we have had continually in regular recurring years a rather serious flood problem. And if I may say so to those associated with the city of Winnipeg, flood protection actions which they may have taken there I am sure result in aggravating the situation that happens to exist on the Assiniboine river. It cannot be otherwise.
I noted that the minister made reference to surveys that were undertaken in the area of Portage la Prairie last year, I understood at the instigation of the international joint commission, with the work being carried out by the prairie farm rehabilitation organization. We all know that these surveys were carried on, and we are anxiously awaiting their reports.
1952
Supply-Resources and Development I might say to the minister and the committee that any undertaking to divert the Assiniboine river under flood conditions across to lake Manitoba is going to cost a tremendous lot of money, more than might ordinarily be expected because of the type of soil. It is a highly alluvial soil and moves around almost like feathers. Therefore whether or not it would stand any flow of water going through it is not only questionable but quite problematical.
In addition to that, the project would require going across three railways on the trans-Canada highway besides bridging other routes and things of that character. On the other hand the Assiniboine river, as those of us who live along it know, has been a problem, largely owing to flood conditions, for upwards of 25 years. An average of probably $10,000 a year has been spent in trying to control the flooding along that river. Perhaps some of that money has not been spent to the best of advantage through having to be utilized to build dikes at bends in the river where the water was likely to overflow. But as time went on and erosion took place these river banks have washed away and the dikes have fallen in. Consequently much of that effort has been lost.
We-and when I say "we" I mean the people interested1-have been attempting to follow in later times a different program, namely that of trying to straighten out some of the very severe crooks that occur in that river. It is a very winding river. We think if we can get the water away more quickly from the mouth of the river, then it will avoid much of the flooding further back; but of course that then aggravates, if you like, the situation in the city of Winnipeg in that it brings the water down more quickly, and it in turn brings about another very serious problem there. But I think this whole project, both for the Red river and the Assiniboine river, involves a much wider program, through additional flood protection on the Assiniboine river, through straightening the bends and building certain dikes, and also probably the installation of storage dams further down the stream to hold back the overflow.
I hope the minister will be able to have this report on the prospects of diverting the river across to lake Manitoba at Portage la Prairie within a reasonable length of time, but I should like to suggest to him and to this committee that this is not in any sense a small undertaking. It involves a very large project and combines the flooding of the Red river as well as the Assiniboine river, and it must be approached in that light.

Supply-Resources and Development


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to express my interest in the report made by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. Those of us who have listened to him feel that he should speak in this house much more often.


William Gilbert Weir: You would never get those estimates through, then.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Some of
the rest of us might not talk so much. The last speech has really brought out the points which were in my mind in a very general way, without the knowledge he has, because I did have the feeling first of all that while no doubt this report is the last word in engineering technique, as I am sure it is, it seemed, as the hon. member has said, to 'be concentrated on Winnipeg; and second, it makes one wonder whether, while these scientifically complete investigations are being made, anything is being done to take care of the actual situation which -might suddenly arise again. I notice the minister said that the end of the year is the target date for the completion of the report. I suppose after that there will be various bodies to get together. Will the responsibility be partly federal, partly provincial and parfy municipal with regard to the Winnipeg area?


Robert Henry Winters: The immediate responsibility assigned to this department is to conduct the investigation. While I am on my feet I wish to thank the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa for his very clear statement of the situation as he sees it. I can tell him that his statemer t will be brought to the attention of those cor .ducting the investigation.
I can assure the hon. member for Greenwood that this is -not purely a recitation of engineering principles; all the human factors and everything else that requires to go into an engineering study if it is going to be any good are being kept before us at all times. This has been a matter to which we have given the greatest consideration, and I am sure any of those who -come from the Winnipeg area will know the amount of work that has been put into these surveys, compiling data, before any attempt can be made to suggest what the solution might be.
With respect to the responsibility, I say again that the immediate responsibility assigned to the Department of Resources and Development was to conduct a survey with a view to determining what steps might be taken to reduce the hazard of flooding in the greater Winnipeg area. Once we have completed the surveys and prepared the report we will then certainly discuss with all parties concerned what the next steps should be.

But until that is available to us we must keep in mind our immediate objective, and that is to complete the surveys and compile the report.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must content myself with the fact that the matter is being dealt with by someone much better informed, and leave it at that. I am glad to hear the minister say that he has noted what seemed to me to be the practical and immediate considerations put forward by the hon. member.


William Gilbert Weir: I wish to urge one thing more in connection with this. As I intimated before, this is a very big undertaking. Should the proposal to divert the Assiniboine river be undertaken seriously I should like to have the assurance from whatever authority may be dealing with it that there would be ample opportunity for those affected to express their points of view. I take from the minister's earlier statement that all his department has been doing thus far has been to arrange for surveys and to collect necessary information; and after that has been completed I understand somebody will have to determine the policy or make the recommendations as to which policy may be followed.
That is the point at which I think we must recognize and understand how the policy followed may affect individuals. I should not like to see anything go out from this committee as a result of the discussion which has taken place that would not assure those whose property may be affected that they will have ample opportunity to know what the project is going to be, how it is going to affect them, and what is involved so far as they are concerned.
I can assure the committee that the people living in the area immediately north of Portage la Prairie, out toward the lake, are vitally concerned in -the matter, and I am afraid they just would not accept kindly any thought that a project of this kind was going to be undertaken without their having full opportunity -to express their points of view and -to have them considered.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understood the minister to say that the full responsibility of his department was to have a report ready by the end of the year. That leads me to ask where the responsibility lies, because after all something more than the preparation of a report must be done. Whose responsibility will it be to act in this matter? We will reach the end of -the year and come within easy range of the flood season before anything is done. Whose responsibility will it be?

When the report is prepared will the matter be allowed t.o rest without action?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member need have no fear in that connection. Once the report has been prepared it will be a matter of study by those concerned, both individually and in governments. As I have informed hon. members, we have been in close consultation with the government of Manitoba and will continue to be in close consultation with it. The city of Winnipeg must have consideration, too. I can assure all hon. members that once the report is available no time will be lost in bringing it to the at.ention of those concerned to see that they are given ample opportunity to study it. The decision can then be made as to what the next steps should be.


William Gilbert Weir: I do not wish to project my remarks into the discussion too frequently, but this matter of jurisdiction is important.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Are we not anticipating the discussion which may take place when the report is tabled?


William Gilbert Weir: I was referring to what had been said by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Louis-René Beaudoin: 1 have followed the hon. member's remarks, and his first observations were in order. But when he points out to the minister that once the report contemplated by the vote is tabled, ample opportunity must be given for consideration, and proceeds to carry on a discussion with respect to jurisdiction, I think his remarks are outside the vote. The hon. member has asked a question to which the minister has replied. I do not wish unduly to curtail discussion because I know hon members are interested in this vital problem, and that as much information as possible be placed on the record at this time. But we always have the same experience where latitude is given. Immediately advantage is taken of that fact, with the result that the discussion continues indefinitely. I suggest that hon. members have had ample opportunity to put their suggestions on record, and that from now on the discussion should be strictly relevant to the item, which deals with the studies and surveys of the Red river basin.


William Gilbert Weir: I had thought my observations were to the point. I am sorry if I have created the impression that I have been digressing from the item under discussion. The matter of jurisdiction is important, because the Assiniboine river happens to be classed as a navigable stream and has created much of the difficulty in devising a policy for the
Supply-Resources and Development control of the flood waters on that river. I was about to suggest that that is one problem which will have to be faced in any overall policy adopted in an attempt to control the flood waters not only of the Assiniboine but also of the Red river.


William Scottie Bryce: I am glad the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has explained the situation. Will not the administration under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act take this over from the government authorities when the survey is made? Will it not be handed to P.F.R.A.? I understood that we passed a measure in the house whereby the matter would be taken out of the hands of the Minister of Public Works and placed under P.F.R.A. so they could carry on this work.
This is a matter of great importance to the people around Winnipeg. Both the Red and the Assiniboine rivers go through my constituency. Is not the report to be made to P.F.R.A.? I understand that the surveys being done by the minister's department are in conjunction with the work being done under P.F.R.A.


Robert Henry Winters: P.F.R.A. is already doing some of the survey work which will be used in the consolidation of the report. In effect they are doing it for the Department of Resources and Development. The responsibility for the accumulation of data and the compiling of the report is that of the depart ment. Whether or not any works to be carried out will be assigned to P.F.R.A. or to any other agency is a decision which will have to be made after the report is submitted. So far that decision has not been made.


William Scottie Bryce: I hope the report will be received soon, because we want to cut ditches this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
386. To provide for studies and surveys of the Saint John river watershed in Canada. $120,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I see this is a new item, and that it is for purposes similar to those set out in the last item under discussion. The Saint John river, as all hon. members know, is a well-behaved river. I might add it is one of the most beautiful, indeed if not the most beautiful river, in Canada or on the North American continent. It has been called the Rhine of America. It is an international river and I was wondering what provision was being made to co-operate with the state of Maine in connection with the control of flood waters on the Saint John river. This river rises in the state of Maine but has many large tributaries in Quebec. It would seem to me that this would have to be a
2836	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development
joint development of the United States and Canada; I cannot see that it would be any good otherwise.
Has this vote anything to do with the development of hydroelectric power on the Saint John river? There has been a keen interest in this subject in New Brunswick for some years.


Robert Henry Winters: This vote results from a reference to the international joint commission which originated with the province of New Brunswick. I understand that the state of Maine collaborated in the reference so that the Saint John river basin above Grand falls could be surveyed primarily to determine what further hydroelectric power potential exists. Any power developments would require regulatory features.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was not for the control of flood conditions; it was primarily in connection with the development of power?


Robert Henry Winters: Primarily in connection with hydroelectric power development.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
389.	Engineering and architectural division-administration, operation and maintenance, $461,964.
William Joseph Browne: Is the branch doing any work this year in Newfoundland? Have any stations been set up in connection with water measuring or water resources?


Robert Henry Winters: Water measuring stations could more appropriately have been discussed under item 382, but I may say to the hon. member that during the past year a number of stations were set up in Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Projects division-
390.	Administration, $38,238.
John Alpheus Charlton: I understand a delegation saw the minister some time ago with regard to the Conestogo project on the upper reaches of the Grand river. I know the minister must realize how serious the situation is on this river, and it is becoming even more serious. The losses from floods in the spring can be tremendous. I am sure the Ontario government has given permission to go ahead with this project, and I hope the dominion government is ready to contribute its share. Has anything definite been done so far regarding this matter?


Robert Henry Winters: A delegation came to see me and requested the federal government to contribute to the construction of the Conestogo dam on the Grand river. This delegation came through the good offices of His Honour the Speaker, and we had a full and pleasant interview. I told them that whether or not
IMr. Brooks.]

the federal government participated would be dependent upon the project being considered to be in the national interest. Quite apart from the dam the provincial government would have the onus of convincing the federal government that there were other features involved, such as forest and soil conservation, which would make this project of national interest. In other words it would have to be the sort of project toward which all taxpayers would feel justified in contributing. The delegation undertook to look into the problem on that broader basis. I believe they have written since that time and the department is studying their submission.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the minister saying that flood conditions are not a problem of the dominion government?


Robert Henry Winters: As has been said here so often, flood conditions in the first instance are the responsibility of the municipality. If the damage is beyond the financial capacity of the municipality, it looks to the provincial government for assistance. If the problem created by the flood is considered to be so broad in character as to be beyond the fiscal capacity of the province and such as to merit participation by the taxpayers of Canada as a whole, then the federal government participates. That is the normal approach to problems of that nature.


John Alpheus Charlton: I realized that there were a number of strings attached, but I did not think they went that far. The damage caused each year is almost equal to what it would cost to complete this Conestogo project. Great flood damage is caused in Brantford and Paris. I am more particularly interested in the latter municipality where the river runs right through the town and the damage can be considerable. In a few years the amount of damage would more than equal the cost of the dam. I hope the minister will consider this matter beyond the national aspect of conservation.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Do I understand the
minister to say that flood damage on such great rivers as the St. Lawrence and Fraser is the responsibility of the municipality?


Robert Henry Winters: If a municipality suffers damage, the responsibility in the first instance lies with the municipality. If the damage is of such magnitude as occurred in the case of the Fraser and Red rivers it becomes beyond the capacity of the municipality. In those instances it was considered to be beyond the capacity of the provincial governments and therefore it involved the interests of the taxpayers of Canada as represented by the federal government.	*


George Alexander Cruickshank: Conditions have changed considerably since early days. Today we have the Canadian National Railways and millions of dollars of federal money invested in national projects. Surely the minister is not going to tell me that the responsibility would rest with a little municipality having a revenue of no more than $200,000 or $300,000. I do not deprecate what the federal government did in the case of the Red and Fraser rivers at the time of our national disasters, but it seems strange to me to hear the minister say that in the case of these great rivers-I am speaking only for the Fraser, as I know very little about the Red river-the responsibility would be that of the local municipality in the case of flood.


Robert Henry Winters: In the first instance it is. Whether or not they are required to bear the full responsibility is another matter. That depends entirely upon the magnitude of the disaster.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to follow that up a little. I am only speaking about the river I know something about, and right at the present time it happens to be our danger period in British Columbia. Under the act as it now stands does your department not have the right to vote funds to protect your investment? What I am trying to get at is that the local municipality could not possibly do it, and I am asking the question for purposes of information. Under your department have you not the right now to vote moneys to protect the investment, if you like to put it that way, that you have at the present time in protection from flood damage in such rivers as the Fraser?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not think the hon. member may have a reply to his question under this item. It has to do with administration under the projects division of the engineering and water resources branch. I think the hon. member should have asked his question on the first item that was carried the other night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
392.	To provide for a contribution to the cost of constructing a dam on the upper Thames river near Fanshawe, Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and conservation, in accordance with the terms of an agreement between Canada, the province of Ontario and the upper Thames river conservation authority, $1,158,220.
Harry Oliver White: I notice there is an increase of $578,220 in this vote. What is the cause of that increase?


Robert Henry Winters: 
Harry Oliver White: There are one or two other matters I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. In nearly all such projects where the government takes over properties because of the development of river projects and other plans there is usually considerable dissatisfaction with the settlements that are made. Some settlements are made with farmers and in other cases there are arbitration proceedings.


Robert Henry Winters: These are matters entirely for the conservation authority or the provincial government. We are not involved at all in settlements for land in these instances.


Harry Oliver White: At the same time this dissatisfaction is there, and I think through the good graces of the federal government and the provincial department working with the authority a better approach could be made to such settlements. I understand that in the case of private companies like the Bell Telephone most of the settlements are made long before the properties are touched and before any work is done. In that manner a lot of dissatisfaction is avoided. I also hear people saying that while the dam is more spectacular and there is a lot more to see for the money expended, the fundamental trouble and cause of the flooding goes back much farther. They say that the reforestation of hillsides, swamps and wastelands that should and could be done is being neglected because of the dam. The dam is the first consideration, while farm properties on the little streams and reaches that feed the Thames and all the other rivers are neglected.
At the time of the sittings of the royal commission under the chairmanship of Hon. F. S. Thomas at Western university in London I made a suggestion as to the possibility of bringing water from lake Huron into the Thames river watershed during the summer months when the flow of the river is at its lowest. I pointed out it would be a great advantage to those living along the river and in the Thames watershed. I realize that such a suggestion is probably an extension of the idea the minister and the Ontario department have in mind at the moment; nevertheless it is not a great engineering problem, and it would provide fresh blue

Supply-Resources and Development water down the whole length of the Thames river right through western Ontario. When the minister replies I hope he will say a word or two along that line.


Robert Henry Winters: I would be very glad to. Quite contrary to overlooking the conservation aspects of reforestation, we have made it a condition in our agreement with the province of Ontario that reforestation projects will have to be undertaken in the watershed area of the Thames river. We made that condition before we would agree to participate in the expenditures involved in building the Fanshawe dam. As a matter of fact reforestation and other land conservation measures are being carried out in the drainage basin. Some of it is being done under the forestry agreement, which can be dealt with later, under which the federal government contributes 25 per cent to the cost of reforestation projects.


Harry Oliver White: We will say that the Fanshawe dam is going to cost approximately $4 million. What percentage is going to be spent by the Thames valley authority on reforestation and conservation?


Robert Henry Winters: The whole amount of
$4,635,000 is to cover the cost of building the dam. I do not have the figure of estimated expenditures in the watershed area to effect conservation measures there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
393.	To provide for a contribution to the cost of constructing a mining road between Black bay and Ace lake in Saskatchewan in accordance with the terms of an agreement between Canada and the province of Saskatchewan, $16,666.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the minister explain this item? What justification is there for constructing a mining road between Black bay and Ace lake in Saskatchewan?


Robert Henry Winters: The justification is that the road is in the Beaverlodge lake area of northern Saskatchewan where there is rich uranium ore. It was considered to be in the national interest to have that uranium ore made available to those industries which, as my hon. friend knows as well as I do, require it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is more to the advantage of the federal government than the provincial government to have a road there.


Robert Henry Winters: It is a three-way proposition under which the federal government pays one-third, the provincial government pays one-third and the mining companies together pay one-third. The largest mining company of course is Eldorado.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

394.	To provide, subject to allocation by treasury board, for the design and planning of deferrable projects, the acquisition of sites and the initiation of construction, $200,000.
William Joseph Browne: Was any
money spent under this vote last year?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the $200,000 to be spent for this year?


Robert Henry Winters: It is provided in the event that conditions in the country make it justifiable or necessary to do some planning on deferrable projects.


John Alpheus Charlton: I take it there is no money put aside here for the Conestogo project?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister mentioned conservation and reforestation. A considerable amount of reforestation has been done in that district already, and has been going on for years.


Robert Henry Winters: That is quite right, and some of it is being done at the present time under the forestry agreement to which I referred earlier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trans-Canada highway division-
395.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $424,785.
Mr. Harkness:: Is the trans-Canada highway included in this statutory item of $15 million? Last year $15 million was allocated as a contribution towards the cost of this highway, and I wondered if the minister could tell us how much of the $15 million was paid out to the provinces last year, and to what provinces the amounts were paid?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr Chairman, as of May 24, 1952, the total amount paid to the provinces was $20,378,263.23. A breakdown of that by provinces is as follows:	Newfoundland,
$1,906,000-I shall give it to the nearest thousand-Prince Edward Island, $534,000; New Brunswick, $1,110,000; Ontario, $8,155,000; Manitoba, $1,114,000; Saskatchewan, $1,297,000; Alberta, $1,089,000; British Columbia, $5,119,000.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood that was last year's contribution to the provinces. What is to be paid out this year?


Robert Henry Winters: I presume I said 1951, but I meant to May 24, 1952.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister said those were grants which had been paid out up to date.


Robert Henry Winters: 1 think I should make that clear at once. I meant paid out to date, and these are the up-to-date figures as of May 24, 1952.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I presume that includes some payment out of this $15 million we are voting this year; is that the case?


Robert Henry Winters: The total amount paid out of last year's vote of $15 million was $12,791,631.48. The remainder of that $20 million odd to which I referred a moment ago came out of the preceding year's vote.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that nothing has been paid out so far as this current year's vote is concerned, that is out of the one-twelfth which we have already voted as interim supply?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand there has been some paid out in the last month and a half, but I have not the figures immediately available.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us if it is expected that the provinces will be receiving payments out of this $15 million? Is there any projected breakdown of this $15 million?


Robert Henry Winters: That is the estimate of what is likely to be required by all participating provinces, that is the nine provinces which have signed agreements. They will be paid out of that vote.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think the point is that the provinces undertake their road construction about this time of year or earlier, and they will be very busy during the summer. I should like to know how much is to be paid out, for instance, in the province of New Brunswick during the coming year for construction of the trans-Canada highway.


Robert Henry Winters: I can give the hon. member the estimate. The New Brunswick estimate for the year 1952-53, that is this coming construction season, totals $725,000. The federal government's contribution, estimated, will amount to $362,500.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask a question in connection with this item, Mr. Chairman. If the provincial government does not do the work by contract, but uses its own facilities, what control has the federal government over that expenditure?


Robert Henry Winters: We have our own supervising engineers on all the contracts. We do have that element of control over the expenditure.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But if the work is not done by contract, what happens? In my riding I had to take the blame because the provincial
Supply-Resources and Development government took a year to build a little bridge over a ditch. Have we any control over that?


Robert Henry Winters: We still have our supervisor examining all the work, even if it is done by day labour by the province of British Columbia.


William Gilbert Weir: Would the minister give the amount of money to be expended in Manitoba this year?


Robert Henry Winters: I should be glad to give that information. The estimate for the province of Manitoba for the year 1952-53 totals $2,925,000, of which the federal government's estimated contribution will be $1,462,500.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Could the minister give the same figure for British Columbia?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I had better give them all. These are estimated figures again, in each case being half the total of the provincial figures. For Newfoundland the federal contribution amounts to $625,000; Prince Edward Island, $480,000; New Brunswick, $362,500; Ontario, $5,500,000; Manitoba, $1,462,500; Saskatchewan, $1,620,000; Alberta, $1,675,000; British Columbia, $2,976,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
396.	To provide for surveys and construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks, $500,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a half million dollar item to provide for surveys and construction on the trans-Canada highway through national parks. There are a few questions I should like to ask. First of all, what is the allocation as between surveys and actual construction? Second, what is the amount of construction and where is it being undertaken this year? Has it already started, and if not when will it get started?


Robert Henry Winters: Just now, Mr. Chairman, tenders are in the process of being called for a bridge and some four miles of grade. This is the program for 1952-53. The proposed work in the lake Louise area will include the new reinforced concrete bridge over the Bow river, the construction of the approaches, and the grading necessary to connect the bridge with the existing highway. From the south end of the bridge approximately one-half mile of new road will be built with good curvature and satisfactory grades to connect with the existing road, and at the north approach the connection with the Banff-Jasper highway and the Pipestone bridge will be graded. Gravel surfacing will be done on all the sections of new road but no treated base course work will be attempted this year. The estimated cost of this work
2840	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development is $217,000. In addition, final location surveys will be made of the trans-Canada highway to Field, B.C., and as far beyond as funds and personnel available will permit. In addition there will be expenditure on construction engineering in the lake Louise area. Funds for this survey and engineering work are being provided in the amount of $25,000, giving a total estimated expenditure of $242,000 at lake Louise and westerly.
The remaining $258,000 will be applied to constructing the trans-Canada highway from the east gate westerly towards Banff. Of this amount, $250,000 is earmarked for construction and $8,000 for engineering. With the amount available we hope to build between four and five miles of new highway between the east gate and Banff. All the work referred to will be done by contract and tenders will be called for as soon as the plans are ready. In fact, as I have stated, tenders have already been called for.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have one question which it might be possible to answer before eleven o'clock. If the Mica creek dam on the Columbia river is proceeded with, it will be necessary to relocate the road. It is my impression that it would then go through a portion of Glacier national park. In that case, would the minister say anything about responsibility for the construction of the road, at least that part of it through the national park?


Robert Henry Winters: Without assuming where the road will go-because I do not know; no surveys have been definitive yet-may I say that if there is a portion of the trans-Canada highway through any national park, the federal government then pays the entire cost of that portion.


Mr. McLure:: I should like to ask the minister whether the highway in the national park in Prince Edward Island from Rustico through to Cavendish will be completed this year.


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Furthermore, I notice there is a large increase in this item. A survey has been going on at Rustico harbour over to Robinsons island, with a view to building a bridge there and connecting the Rustico-Cavendish part of the national park with Dalvay and the eastern part. I have not seen any report as to whether this survey is going to be continued this year or, furthermore, whether a bridge is going to be built across the harbour at Rustico. This is one of the projects that was up for consideration prior to 1949. Having regard to the size of this vote as compared with that of other years,
I should like to know whether this highway


is going to be completed. Another question I should like to ask is this. Are any negotiations in progress with the provincial government with regard to the building of a highway from New Glasgow, Prince Edward Island to Cavendish. It is only a distance of six miles. Some preparation has already been made by the provincial government with regard to the road. In visiting Cavendish, one drawback is this six miles of dirt road which could be made into a satisfactory highway. I understand the provincial government are ready to pay their share if the federal government will come in and assist in making it a permanent highway to connect with the highway at New Glasgow; they will then have a perfect road right through and get clear of all the dust about which there are so many complaints at the present time.
I know it is after eleven o'clock. The minister will take quite a while to reply to this question-


Robert Henry Winters: It will not take me very long to reply.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We had better have the question left over.


Robert Henry Winters: None of the projects to which my hon. friend the senior member for Queens referred comes within the scope of this vote. None of them is on the route of the trans-Canada highway. He was discussing certain contemplated projects in the national park. All I can tell him is that we propose this year to complete the paving of that portion of the roadway between Dalvay and Stanhope. The other projects are outside the scope of this vote.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Eleven o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall this item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Robert Henry Winters: It does not come under this vote, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The minister has just said that the questions asked do not come under this vote. Do hon. members still want to have this item left over, or do they want to carry it? Perhaps I might point out that there are two items left before we complete the engineering and water resources branch. The next item is No. 397, for $1,000, to provide for general investigation by the Northwest Territories power commission.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, it is five minutes past eleven. There are two items left. I see there are quite a number of members who would like to ask some more questions. I think the items should be allowed to stand.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will move to go into committee of supply and call two new departments. Then we will consider the estimates of resources and development, national health and welfare, and labour; also public works, perhaps, if we complete labour.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
National parks branch-
375.	Branch administration, $23,545.
National parks and historic sites services-
376.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $3,646,974.
377.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $3,506,443.
378.	Grant to the Jack Miner migratory birds foundation, $5,000.
Canadian wildlife service-
379.	Wildlife resources (conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act-administration, operation and maintenance, $332,680.
380.	National Museum of Canada-administration, operation and maintenance, $259,823.
Engineering and water resources branch-
381.	Branch administration, $65,172.
Supply-Resources and Development
Water resources division-
Water resources division, including the administration of the Dominion Water Power and Irrigation Acts-
382.	Administration, operation and maintenance including grant of $350 to the international executive council world power conference, $606,345.
383.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $22,423.
384.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $387,535.
385.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Red river basin in Canada, including Assiniboine and Pembina rivers, $255,553.
386.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Saint John river watershed in Canada, $120,000.
387.	Lake of the Woods control board, $15,590.
388.	To provide for the expenses incurred under the agreement between Canada, Ontario and Manitoba, confirmed by the Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928, moneys expended to be largely reimbursed, $17,750.
389.	Engineering and architectural division-administration, operation and maintenance, $461,964.
Projects division-
390.	Administration, $38,238.
391.	To provide for a contribution by Canada to the improvement and reconstruction of the road between Patricia bay airport, Vancouver island, and the city limits of Victoria, B.C., in accordance with the terms of the agreement between Canada and the province of British Columbia, $147,974.
392.	To provide for a contribution to the cost of constructing a dam on the Upper Thames river near Fanshawe, Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and conservation, in accordance with the terms of an agreement between Canada, the province of Ontario and the Upper Thames river conservation authority, $1,158,220.
393.	To provide for a contribution to the cost of constructing a mining road between Black bay and Ace lake in Saskatchewan in accordance with the terms of an agreement between Canada and the province of Saskatchewan, $16,666.
394.	To provide, subject to allocation by treasury board, for the design and planning of deferrable projects, the acquisition of sites and the initiation of construction, $200,000.
Trans-Canada highway division-
395.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $424,785.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 3, 1952