1953-03-27

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East) presented the first report of the special committee on broadcasting, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halton) presented the second report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this is a majority report.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That votes Nos. 467, 471 and 476 of the main estimates for 1953-54, approved and reported upon this day by the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
.	NATIONAL DEFENCE	.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have given his office. Has the minister any comment to make on the address delivered in Toronto yesterday by Wing Commander R. H. Rohmer, D.F.C., in which he stated that Canada is absolutely defenceless to air attack-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Ferguson:: Don't you want to hear the truth?


George Randolph Pearkes: -and that it is high time the people of Canada were told the truth?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As the hon.
member knows, he must not give any information-


An hon. Member:: He is reading a speech.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This is a matter of national importance.


An hon. Member:: Horses to you.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. It is not possible for the Speaker to be heard if there is noise in the house. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) is asking a question. He is entitled to ask the question if the matter is urgent, but he must not give any information when asking the question. He must simply ask his question.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have asked my question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He has given a speech.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: I can only answer the question fully by going extensively into the situation regarding the production of aircraft. This question was covered before by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), in a statement in the house on February 16, in so far as the production by A.V. Roe Canada Limited is concerned.
In answer to the hon. member for Nanaimo, I can tell him that we have today six squadrons of Sabre fighters abroad, the most formidable fighter aircraft in operation today. The importance of the Canadian Sabre squadrons was indicated by references to them in the press growing out of the recent incidents in Europe. Three more squadrons are on their way over. We shall complete our full commitment of an air division of twelve squadrons to NATO by the date set and we shall do that in the belief- which I think is shared by all Canadians- that the best place to defend Canada and to prevent aggression is as far away from our shores as possible.
As I have indicated, a report on the production of the CF-100 has already been made to the house-that is the other fighter aircraft we have in production-and this report and others available to me on the production of the aircraft and the engines
3340	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry indicate that it should be possible for us similarly to complete the planned build-up of our defences in Canada with these allweather fighters designed particularly to do that job. It was not possible to do this before because the aircraft with which to do it did not exist anywhere in the world. Had we gone into production of any earlier type we would have had a major part of our productive capacity engaged in producing planes which were either already obsolescent or which were not suited for the purpose. Instead of that we engaged in producing the CF-100 which is believed to be the leading long-range all-weather fighter aircraft, and it is specially designed, equipped and qualified to meet the needs of Canadian defence.
At all times during the past year and a half we have had a number of squadrons of Sabres for our defence pending their transfer to the other side, and we have had a large number of aircrew and aircraft in the operational training units. Exercise Signpost last July was the first major demonstration and exercise of air defence.
There is nothing new in the situation and it has been made plain from time to time. In "Canada's Defence Program" the white paper I put before parliament last session, in June, 1952, and which was widely distributed, I referred to the air defence of Canada; and after mentioning radar installations and communications I said:
At the same time fighter defence in Canada, both regular and reserve, is being built up. At present the fighter squadrons for this purpose are equipped with Vampire and Mustang aircraft. These will be replaced1 by CF-lOO's as they become available. In addition, there are a number of squadrons equipped with F-86E's and designated for the NATO air force in Europe. In the meantime they are available for the defence of this continent.
The statement then made was completely in accordance with the facts as they then existed and it has been amplified and repeated time after time ever since. It has been made perfectly plain that the first squadron of CF-lOO's was in process of formation. We could not establish it- equipped with this first all-weather long-range fighter to meet Canadian needs-until the planes were produced, and there were no suitable planes in production anywhere else.
Mr. Speaker, I have referred to the production -of F-86's and CF-lOO's. As to the production of F-86's, there may be some people still who are sorry that we did not take their advice and go into production on some other types of fighters which are now obsolete. I do not believe that the Royal


Air Force of the United Kingdom, which is receiving a large number of these fighters, would take that view. I do not believe that the United States Air Force, to which we sold a number of these fighters for use in Korea, would take that view.	I do not
believe that the countries of NATO and Britain, which are now being defended in part by our fighters abroad, would take that view either.	I do not believe that the
people of Canada would take that view because the F-86E and its production have been magnificent successes and major contributions to our combined defence.
Similarly, a year from now I believe that we shall look back on our decision to make the CF-100 and the Orenda engine in Canada as a major contribution to the defence of North America and of Canada itself.


Mr. J. S. Sinnoif (Springfield):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Is he aware that Wing Commander Rohmer is in partnership with a certain Conservative candidate in Toronto?


Mr. Fraser:: And treasurer of the Liberal party.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that we are importing beagle hounds from the old country to be used to encourage the men of the flying corps at Camp Borden to take exercise? Is that true or not true?
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National
Defence): No.
'	FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister been informed by his deputy that the Prince Edward Island fisheries federation strongly protests the new carapace measurement for lobsters? If so, what comment has he to make with regard to the matter?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been informed. I have no further comment to make at this time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister been informed of an order made yesterday by Mr. Justice Manson in open trial in Vancouver instructing the press not to report certain statements that had been made, and an incident that took place in the trial? Can the minister say whether it is permissible for a judge to issue such an order to the press?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the incident of which my hon. friend is speaking is one which comes under the administration of justice in the province of Ontario and he might-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This was in Vancouver.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I beg your pardon; in the province of British Columbia. The question which he is asking in this house might more properly be asked in British Columbia of the attorney general there.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister received any complaints about parcels, addressed to prisoners of war in Korea, which are not being delivered? If so, does the minister wish to make any comment on the matter?


Hon. Alcide Cole (Postmasier General):: Mr. Speaker, I must thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of this question. The answer is that no such complaints have been received. As a matter of fact, I am advised that there is no parcel post service at the present time between Canada and prisoners of war in Korea, and no such parcels have been tendered for acceptance; neither has there been any request for such service.


Brooke Claxton: If I may supplement the answer, may I say that there is only one Canadian prisoner of war that we know of.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



PAN-AMERICAN UNION    STATEMENT BY CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO COLOMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I sent him last night a press clipping and notice of my question for today. It is this. In view of the fact that the Canadian ambassador to Colombia, Edmond Turcotte, indicated this week that Canada eventually might join the Pan-American Union if the union tendered such an invitation, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether the government has any steps in this direction in contemplation at the moment and whether that statement accurately reflects Canadian government policy?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The Department of External Affairs has no information other than the press report to which the hon. member for Peel refers about a statement attributed to the newly-appointed ambassador to Colombia concerning Canada's attitude to the organization of American states.
The position of the government of Canada in this respect has not changed since I last referred to this subject on February 12, 1949, when I spoke at a press conference in Washington. Speaking of the Organization of American States, formerly known as the Pan-American Union, I said:
Our government has been giving thought to the Pan-American Union over a great many years and our relations with the members of the Pan-American Union have always been most satisfactory. The angle from which this has been examined is as to whether our actual participation in the PanAmerican Union would be productive of any real advantage for any of its members. Our cultural, our trade relations, with other members of the Pan-American Union have always been very good and they will improve constantly. So far it has not appeared to us that there would be any decided advantage in a formal membership in the PanAmerican Union.


Gordon Graydon: Will the Prime Minister convey to the Department of External Affairs some message whereby they may find out whether the ambassador to Colombia had been correctly reported or not?


Mr. St. Laurent:: The Department of
External Affairs has already asked the ambassador to Colombia to give a factual report on what is referred to in this press clipping.

Interim Supply GRAIN



SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF REPORT OF BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister have the annual report of the board of grain commissioners referred to the agriculture committee during the present session?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The annual report of the
board of grain commissioners has not been received by the minister. I understand it is being printed at the present time. When it is received I shall be glad to consider the situation of that day and give my hon. friend an answer.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Douglas Charles Abbott: That a sum not exceeding $534,871,213.17, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament: and in addition thereto, a sum not exceeding $207,500, being one-quarter of the amount of item 433, a sum not exceeding $372,512.84, being one-sixth of the amount of items 199, 201, 204, 205, and a sum not exceeding $2,223,289.17, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 19, 37 , 62, 435, 436, 439, of the said estimates be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954.
He said: Mr. Chairman, the bill to be founded on this resolution will provide for the usual one-sixth of all the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year which commences on the 1st day of April, 1953, and an additional one-quarter of one special item, namely, the international trade fair, where the major portion of the expenditures have to be met in the early part of the year; and an additional one-sixth of four other special items, which include the sessional expenses of this house and the other place; the unemployment insurance commission; certain additional costs for the transfer of labour; and an additional one-twelfth of six other special items, two of them in the Department of Agriculture, one of them relating to the experimental farm service and the other freight assistance on western feed grain where an expenditure of an additional amount is due early in the year, and three items in trade and commerce, electricity and gas inspection service, weights

and measures inspection service; and the dominion bureau of statistics, certain census expenses.
In no instance of course is the total amount of any item being released. These special items are substantially the same as the ones that I asked for in the first interim supply at the last session. The form of the bill is the same as the bill which was passed at this time last year. As usual, I give the undertaking that the passing of the bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time during the remainder of the session, and the usual undertaking is given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as the result of the passing of this measure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it not
unusual to have interim supply in the year preceding the year in respect of which it is granted? In other words, is it not unusual to ask that these moneys be given before the end of the fiscal year itself?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, my recollection is that it is the customary thing to do it in that way. On April 1 we must have money to .pay civil salaries and the expenses which are incurred in the fiscal year. I am speaking from memory, but my recollection is that it is usual, a day or two before the end of the fiscal year, to ask for interim supply. It seemed to me that it might be convenient to deal with interim supply and to deal with the final supplementary estimates at the same time, and I brought it on today.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


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


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted! to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $534,871,213.17, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954;
2.	The sum of $207,500, being one-quarter of the amount of item 433 of the said estimates;

3.	The sura of $372,512.84, being one-sixth of the amount of items 199, 201, 204, 205 of the said estimates; and
4.	The sum of $2,223,289.17, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 19, 37, 62, 435, 436, 439 of the said estimates; as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 291, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1954.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
560. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural prices support account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1952-53, including authority to credit to the account the net revenue received into the agricultural products board account from the sale of New Zealand meat received in exchange for beef shipped to the United Kingdom, $32,346,000.
Mr. Charlton:: I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, because I should like to have some information on this item. Is there anyone here who can give it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Agriculture could not be present today.


John Alpheus Charlton: How much surplus beef bought last year is still on hand, and what amount has been sold?


Douglas Charles Abbott: First, with respect to hogs, on April 1, 1952, the agricultural prices support board held 5,492,520 pounds of canned pork produced to their specifications and had a further 92,768,454 pounds produced to their specifications up to March 31, 1953. It is estimated that by March 31 the board will have resold 25 million pounds of canned pork, principally in the domestic market, at a net loss to the board of $6,075,000. Various pork cut programs involving 101,437,581 pounds of product have been carried out and it is estimated that about 10 million pounds of these cuts will remain on hand as at March 31, 1953. The total loss on the cuts resold to March 31 is estimated at $2,738,828.08, which is mainly represented oy the payment of certain storage, transportation and other handling charges which
Supply-Agriculture
had to be added to the fresh cost in calculating the net loss.
Then, I presume the hon. member would like to have similar information with respect to cattle. In this connection the major .program has been one of acceptance of carcass beef for shipment to the United Kingdom in return for which New Zealand beef has been sold in the United States to offset the cost of the Canadian beef. Other programs have included the purchase of live cattle and the operation of the Canadian Co-operative Processors' plant at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, the acceptance of some boneless beef and carcass beef which are presently stored in Canada, and the acceptance of some specially prepared boneless beef which has been resold to the Department of National Defence for use by Canadian and commonwealth troops in Korea.
Up to March 31, 1953, it is estimated the board will have purchased 159,533 cattle and accepted product in the form of carcass and boneless beef as well as some live cattle. As at March 31, 1953, the board estimates it will hold in storage in Canada product equivalent to 38,555 cattle including those held alive on community pasture. About two-thirds of these cattle are stored in the form of frozen carcass beef and most of the balance in the form of boneless manufacturing beef. No cattle have been purchased since the lifting of the American embargo on March 1, 1953.
The board exported 70,210,913 pounds of carcass beef, the equivalent of 112,410 cattle, to the United Kingdom at a cost of $31,384,000. For purposes of establishing the net loss on this operation to March 31, 1953, estimated revenue from the sale of New Zealand beef received in exchange for the beef shipped to the United Kingdom has been used as an offset in the amount of $8,377,595, this operation resulting in a loss of $23,006,405 in the beef account. As there are still some intergovernmental arrangements to be finalized in connection with a part of this program, some further minor adjustments may be necessary in this account, but these will be adjusted in a final audited statement and presented for approval when the board makes its recoup vote for 1953-54, at the end of the following fiscal year.
The board accepted 1,505,647 pounds of boneless beef in the buffer zone area which the board has had canned, and sold the bulk of this product to Greece with a small quantity being sold in the Canadian market. The net loss on this product was $588,988.92. Some 812 cattle were bought and resold live at approximately cost, and the board is still
3344	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration holding 39 live cattle on community pasture in western Canada valued at $7,741.89 including all added costs up to March 31, 1953. The board has sold some 2,457,913 pounds of boneless beef prepared to American army specifications to the Department of National Defence for use in supplying Canadian and commonwealth troops in Korea. This operation has been carried out at no loss to the board. The board still holds 14,806,507 pounds of frozen carcass beef, 5,930,184 pounds of boneless manufacturing beef and 26,563 pounds of beef offals in Canadian storages.
This, I think, gives fairly complete statistical information concerning the operations of the board up to the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the buying of beef from packing houses now ceased?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Mr. McLure:: I take it, in respect of all these items, that we can get all the information required at a later time, when the main estimates are before the committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. I should have explained that these are our year-end supple-mentaries. With certain exceptions, no new question of policy is involved. It is simply a case where, in preparing the main estimates, we have not voted amounts sufficient fully to implement agreed policies. These sums are to provide for payments of the necessary amounts before the end of the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION B-National Gallery of Canada-
562. Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art, in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act-further amount required, $276,000.
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: This
supplementary vote seems to be out of all proportion to the amount voted last year. Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration give some explanation of the purchases made?


Mr. Harris:: Hon. members will recall that about a year and a half ago we appointed a new board of trustees for the national gallery and passed an act incorporating the national gallery in a somewhat modern manner. The board of trustees took their duties seriously and after much study suggested to the government the purchase of three paintings which they thought should be added to the gallery at this time to indicate, shall I say, a little greater interest in the gallery than has been the case heretofore.


I think the committee will realize that in the past we have voted sums ranging from $80,000 to about $130,000 to cover the annual purchases of small items of art and the like. There happened to be an opportunity to acquire three rather valuable and distinguished acquisitions for the gallery and in view of the fact that the board was made up of prominent citizens who are on the civil side but nevertheless acquainted with the art world it was felt proper that we should meet their wishes at this time as an earnest of our desire to have the gallery really constitute a national body for the dissemination of art throughout the country.


Gordon Graydon: Before these paintings are
purchased will the minister cast his talented' eyes in art over them?


Walter Edward Harris: May I say by way of amendment my own eyes have been passed over the paintings.


Mr. Adamson:: What are the pictures?


William Joseph Browne: Who are
the artists and what did the pictures cost?


Walter Edward Harris: I could give the names and
the figures in private and they will be made known eventually, but at the moment I should like to ask the indulgence of the committee as the desire is not to disclose the names until they are really acquired.


William Joseph Browne: They have
not been acquired yet?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Gordon Graydon: That would not be a secret, order in council, would it?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
B-Crown companies-[DOT]
563. To provide for expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence-further amount required, $232,016.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should
like to know more about this item. Although the amount of $232,016 may seem small when compared with the huge figures we have to deal with in connection with national defence, nevertheless I want to know a little more about it. First of all we have the Department of National Defence, then we have the Department of Defence Production, then we have Defence Construction Limited and then Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I understand that there are one or two additional items for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

My understanding is that Defence Construction Limited has only a small staff, but that a large staff of engineers is carried in national defence and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I would like to know why we have to have this additional $232,016?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend is aware, an amount has already been voted for Defence Construction Limited to provide for expenses in connection with the construction of defence projects. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation acts as agent for Defence Construction Limited and for the government in a great many of these things. This amount represents, first, an additional amount to cover administration and supervision on construction of four large projects by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which were done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and which really reimburses that corporation and, secondly, for the building and maintenance program and capital assistance construction program from the Department of Defence Production.
There was originally voted under this vote $3,308,500, of which $3 million represented Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation management fees and $308,500 direct expenses of Defence Construction Limited. It is now estimated that a total of $3,640,516 will be required, of which extra there is some surplus in the direct expense vote of Defence Construction Limited, but $415,000 additional will be required for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is really an interdepartmental bookkeeping entry.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: So far as
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation goes, it is perhaps easy to understand because I think they do go out and undertake building operations, but as I understand it, Defence Construction Limited is only a small organization which does a certain amount of managerial work. I do not understand that "hey do any construction themselves.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
understand that there are obligations they have to undertake and I would assume that all they have to look after is staff.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This item of $232,016 has nothing to do with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as that comes later; this is all for Defence Construction Limited. I think we should receive more information as to just why this vote is necessary.
Supply-Defence Production Mr. Abbott: I did my best to explain it. The original vote, which this is supplementing, was $3,308,000-that has already been voted-and it was estimated that of that $3 million would be required for the services of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is now estimated that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will require $3,415,000.
It was originally estimated that the direct expenses of Defence Construction Limited would be $308,500; it is now estimated that their direct expenses will be $423,644, the additional amount being made up as follows:
Salaries	 $82,931
Travelling and	living expenses ____ 32,681
Telephones and	telegraphs	 4,301
And so on. I take it that my hon. friend is particularly interested in the increase in the direct expenses of Defence Construction Limited.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I have the figures correctly, they are $82,000, $32,000 and $4,000, making a total of $118,000 to cover the additional expenses of Defence Construction Limited. Am I correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The figure I have is $115,144.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand it, these figures do not include anything for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the minister's parliamentary assistant could give more of a breakdown than I have. I think it includes something for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Dickey:: There is an addition to the management fee which is paid by Defence Construction Limited to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the management that they do for Defence Construction Limited of defence projects.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That amount
is what?


John Horace Dickey: The amount that I have just mentioned totals $415,000, but there are certain items that have been offset to reduce the amount that has to be voted as a further supplementary to $232,016.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry, I must plead whatever amount of stupidity is necessary, but I still do not get this.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps this item could stand and a little later the parliamentary assistant could make it clear to the hon. gentleman.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
want to hold this up at all but up to the moment I do not know where I am.
3346	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Defence Production


John Horace Dickey: If I may say a general word, Mr. Abboif: If my hon. friend would like I think I may be able to resolve the hon. to do a little arithmetic I can give him the member's difficulty. He apparently does not amounts by which the estimates will be underquite appreciate the function of Defence Con- spent. There is $1,799 on furniture and struction Limited.	fixtures; $29,928-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I think Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood): It is the
I do.	total I wanted.


John Horace Dickey: He says it is a small organization with a small staff. That is true, but it is the corporation which enters into construction contracts in the defence construction program and it is the body that pays out all the money for those construction projects. In order to supervise those projects it has as an agent Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is required to pay quite considerable sums to that corporation for the services that it performs for Defence Construction Limited. As the minister indicated, the estimated amount to be paid to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this fiscal year was $3,308,500.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the total vote.


John Horace Dickey: I am sorry, that is the total vote for Defence Construction Limited. But there is an additional requirement of $232,016. There is required an additional management fee cost estimated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at $415,000. There are direct expenses incurred by Defence Construction Limited resulting from additional functions assumed during the fiscal year as follows: Salaries-(a) administration of building and maintenance, thirteen positions, and capital assistance, seven positions, with respect to programs which were taken over from the Department of Defence Production in July, 1952. -1 might say there that the president of Defence Construction Limited appeared before the defence expenditure committee a day or so ago and gave very full evidence about what had taken place at that time. Then (b), services such as central registry, mail room, plans and specifications, formerly performed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, ten positions, and assumed by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in July, 1952.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How much is that?


John Horace Dickey: That is an additional $18,000; (c) administration of Cold Lake project, twelve positions, taken over from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in February, 1953, $12,000. Against those expenses there are recoveries under these headings. There are quite a few of them. There are recoveries under furniture and fixtures-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Give us the total.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -professional and special services, $180,000 on the $280,000 paid by Defence Construction Limited to the United States government. It is estimated that $180,000 of that amount will be refunded. Then there is $18,128 being the amount refunded by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These are offsets against the gross additional requirement of $530,000 odd, making a net of $232,016.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As far as I
am concerned, this is a kaleidoscope. We are getting new figures every second. I thought I was getting somewhere because the parliamentary assistant told me they needed $415,000 more.


John Horace Dickey: That was additional management fee and this other is offset.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought I understood that was additional. Then there was $30,000 more in additional direct expenses and another item making $445,000. I think I am getting somewhere now.


John Horace Dickey: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I
thought the next figure he gave me was recoveries of $429,000, and if my arithmetic is good that means we have a spread of $16,000. I am sorry, but now that we have embarked on this I want to know where that $232,000 is. I have not found it. I suggest it would be sensible-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is just a matter of arithmetic.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I know it is but you and the parliamentary assistant have the figures there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps this will condense it a little more. Here is the total vote of the supplementary: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation management fee, $415,000 additional requirement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Check.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Defence Construction Limited, direct expense, additional amount required $115,144.


Gordon Graydon: Check.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Against these totals there are the following amounts estimated as not being required in the primaries already voted: $1,799 underspent on furniture and fixtures;

$29,928 on professional and special services; $180,000 with respect to Canusad operations. That is a refund from the United States government. Then there is an amount refunded by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, July to March, $18,128. If my hon. friend will add up those groups-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You give me the total.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -and subtract I think he will find the additional amount which I need is $232,016 over and above the amount already voted of $3,308,500.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister give me first the total of these offset items, the ones he has just read? I will take his total.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will be delighted to do that. I will add it up.


Gordon Graydon: Abbott's ready reckoning.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I am sorry I have not got my slide rule here.


Mr. Coldwell:: I thought the hon. member for Greenwood could add.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought he could too.


Gordon Graydon: You add on so much that somebody has to subtract.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I add it up to $228,855, but I have not checked my addition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I think you are cheating yourself. I did not want to do that addition. I wanted the minister to take the responsibility for that. But I now have the figures with respect to the two items he gave me, $415,000 and $115,000. That makes $530,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is $100,000 for special reserve.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is a new figure. We have not had that before. It is an additional credit.


An hon. Member:: That is one Dickey forgot.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, perhaps I forgot about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This seems to be all dollars and no sense.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am always ready to submit to the minister but I do not think he has it figured out yet.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We will do a little more addition and see what we can get.


Gordon Graydon: Could the house be quiet while this is going on? You cannot figure out things when there is a noise.


Mr. Hodgson:: Send for Sinnott.
Supply-Defence Production


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not balance either.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I think I have made the best suggestion yet, that the item should stand so that the figuring can be done later. It will save a lot of time. We are going to get that figure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The parliamentary assistant is going to read you some more figures.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall this item stand until later?


John Horace Dickey: I think this will clear it up. If the hon. member will take these figures, I think he will find they are correct, if he will just let me read them. There was an additional management fee and the cost estimated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is $415,000. Then, there are direct expenses.
I gave the hon. member the three headings totalling $82,931.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is the total.


John Horace Dickey: That is the total of the three headings that I read. There are travelling and living expenses of $32,681; telephones and telegraphs, $4,301; additional work referred to under previous headings accounts for increases in items such as building and maintenance, $9,000; sundry expenses in connection with the Cold Lake project, $6,000; rent for head office, etc., $26,958, which gives a total of $561,871.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Giving the parliamentary assistant the benefit of the doubt, we will work on that figure.


John Horace Dickey: Now, the recoveries that have been referred to by the Minister of Finance are as follows: Recoveries on furniture and fixtures, $1,799; professional and special services, $29,928; United States government recovery of fees, $180,000, plus $100,000 from the special reserve. This totals $280,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the special reserve?


John Horace Dickey: That is a reserve carried against that vote which is now put into the vote in order to reduce the amount required for this supplementary estimate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that a surplus?


John Horace Dickey: No, it is a special reserve carried against the necessity of charging against this particular vote. Received from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation an amount of $18,128, being payment for special services no longer performed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, included in the overhead paid to the corporation. The total for these estimates is $329,855 which, when
3348	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production subtracted from the total amount required of $561,871, gives the amount of this vote, $232,016.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we can now give the parliamentary assistant first prize for addition, but not first prize for timing.


Mr. Harkness:: If I understand this matter correctly, this vote is necessary because the cost of supervision on major projects was in the nature of $458,000 more than it was estimated it would be; is that correct?


John Horace Dickey: 


Douglas Scott Harkness: Leaving aside the offsetting items, the vote is necessary because the supervisory services have been much more extensive than was expected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Construction has gone ahead more quickly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the basic reason why these supervisory costs are so much more than was estimated because a considerable number of cost-plus contracts were undertaken which meant a great deal more supervision than would be necessary otherwise?


John Horace Dickey: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Higgins:: Is it under this item that the defence projects are constructed in the different provinces? Is this the item that takes care of that?


John Horace Dickey: That is right.


Gordon Francis Higgins: In what provinces are there defence projects being constructed?


John Horace Dickey: They are in all ten provinces. Mr. Higgins: What is in Newfoundland?


John Horace Dickey: I have not the details of the projects under construction in Newfoundland, but there are projects in all ten provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The parliamentary assistant says that this extra supervisory cost was not due to cost-plus contracts. I believe the Minister of Finance said it was due to the fact that construction had gone ahead more rapidly than they expected. I cannot see how that is really the case, because the amount of money we voted for construction has not been exceeded. We are not being asked to vote extra money for construction, either under defence or under defence production.
It would appear, therefore, that the minister's reason for this extra amount

this very large amount-for supervisory costs is not explained. I should like to know what the explanation is for this very large increase in supervisory costs.


John Horace Dickey: The explanation quite briefly, Mr. Chairman, is that Central Mortgage and


Housing performed on the site supervision for all defence construction contracts. When the main estimates for this work were prepared some 16 to 18 months ago, Central Mortgage and Housing estimated that their charge for these services would be a certain amount. In a very large program of this kind there are many factors which it is difficult to forecast with absolute certainty. The experience has been that there is an additional amount required by Central Mortgage and Housing to meet their expenses for these supervisory activities, and they have had to go to their employer, Defence Construction Limited, and indicate that they require additional money.
Now, that is the explanation. It is a combination of factors which I do not think could possibly be all assessed by the hon. member or by myself. It is the result of the defence program and the work that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is doing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I understand the explanation now, it has been due largely to poor estimating as to what the cost of this supervision would be. I wonder if the minister or the parliamentary assistant could tell us how much of this $415,000 was actually expended for cost-plus contracts.


John Horace Dickey: I do not think the hon. member is quite correct in saying that this is the result of poor estimating. It is the result of a number of factors that could not possibly be foreseen at the time the estimates were prepared. These programs are very complex, and become more complex sometimes as they go along.
I do not think it is possible, certainly we have not got the figures here, to indicate the impact of any cost-plus contracts on this particular item. All I can tell the hon. member is that the number of cost-plus contracts is less than 2 per cent of the entire program, and the value of those contracts is something less than 8 per cent of the entire program. I think that the additional costs would bear some relationship at least to those figures.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry but I must take issue with the total of the cost-plus contracts and the percentages which the assistant has given, because those figures do not jibe with what we were given in the defence expenditure committee. The figure we were given there is 3-8 per cent, and that was only for the non-security defence projects. All of the security defence projects were on a cost-plus basis.


John Horace Dickey: No, the figure given to the defence expenditure committee was the

figure I have quoted, less than 2 per cent. It is true, as my hon. friend points out, that the strict security projects are on a cost-plus basis, and they are on a cost-plus basis for the simple reason that they are strict security projects. They are not .included in the figures I have given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister is giving the percentage of the number of contracts, but he is not giving the amount of dollars involved. The percentage of dollars involved in the cost-plus contracts is very much greater.


John Horace Dickey: I gave that. Excluding the security projects, it is under 8 per cent of the total program.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Now we have gone from 2 per cent to 8 per cent.


Mr. Mcllraith:: No, you have not.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Reverting to the question I asked the parliamentary assistant a moment ago, the figures I am trying to get are those relating to plants established for defence projects, apart from defence installations. Have you built factories?


John Horace Dickey: There are projects of construction under the capital assistance program in various provinces to meet production requirements but nothing, I think, under this vote.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Nothing under this item?


John Horace Dickey: No.


Mr. Green:: A few days ago figures were produced by Defence Construction Limited showing the amount of defence construction contracts awarded from November 22, 1950.


John Horace Dickey: Was that in the committee on defence expenditure?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know. I have a figure here-


Louis-René Beaudoin: So that the hon. member may understand the situation, may I point out that if these figures were produced before the committee on defence expenditure, unless they were reported in the house they cannot be used.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that the figures have been published.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They appeared in the press.


John Horace Dickey: If I may do so, I would suggest that the president of Defence Construction Limited is appearing at the present time before the defence expenditure committee and that I am sure any question that might be asked relating to evidence before that committee could best be dealt with there.
Supply-External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: I do not happen to be on that committee, and these figures were published in the daily press. All that I wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant is this. The figures cover the period from November 22, 1950, to December 31, 1952, and they show a total of $401,160,000. Then there is a breakdown into the expenditures in each province. The expenditures in British Columbia are about 5 per cent of that figure. They are given as $20,922,000. Can the parliamentary assistant explain why that figure is so low? It seems to be greatly out of line with the requirements in a coastal province where there are extensive defence installations.


John Horace Dickey: That question was asked in the defence expenditure committee the other day, and the best thing I can do is to repeat the answer that was given, namely that construction of defence projects is carried out on instructions from the Department of National Defence. The Department of National Defence decides where and when they want construction done, and they make those decisions on the grounds of military necessity.


Mr. Gillis:: Can the parliamentary assistant give us a breakdown province by province? It appears that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has a document that gives him a breakdown as to the amount of money that has been spent in each province.


John Horace Dickey: The document which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has in his hand was a return that was tabled in the defence expenditure committee. The hon. member can certainly get a copy. I shall be delighted to send him a copy.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Terminable services-
565.	Contribution to the United Nations refugee emergency fund, $100,000.
Gordon Graydon: I desire to make one inquiry only in connection with item 565. I may say that item 566 was dealt with yesterday in the external affairs committee and I think the explanation of that will be found there. Just what is this additional contribution to the United Nations refugee emergency fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As the committee may recall, the United Nations refugee emergency fund was established under authority of a resolution passed at the sixth session of the United Nations general assembly. The high commissioner for refugees was appointed by the United Nations to provide international pro-
3350	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs tection for refugees upon the termination of the international refugee organization. Because of the serious plight of refugee groups in various areas, the United Nations high commissioner has had to concern himself with the problem of care and maintenance, and it is for this purpose that he has sought contributions to the emergency fund.
The objective of this fund was set at $3 million. Cabinet approved a Canadian contribution of $100,000 to this fund on Thursday, February 12, 1953, and recommended that the necessary provision be made in the final supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1952-53.
As I understand it, it is really to provide for a continuation and clean-up of the work of the international refugee organization.


Gordon Graydon: Did any of these nations behind the iron curtain give us anything in the way of a contribution to this extremely valuable project?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My understanding is that they did not.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be a vote for this project in the coming fiscal year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot recall offhand, but I am inclined to think that there is. However,
I would have to verify that. In any case, it would probably be a supplementary estimate, as is the case this year. It would depend on circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Colombo plan-
566.	Notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the Colombo plan fund to which shall be credited, on or after March 31, 1953, the unexpended balances on March 31, 1953, of votes 113 and 114 of the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1952 (the amounts so credited to be a charge to those votes) and any amounts provided by parliament for the purposes of the Colombo plan; and to provide for payments out of the Colombo plan fund, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, (a) for grants and loans to governments of countries in south and south-east Asia to assist in their economic development, and for special administrative expenses in connection therewith; and (b) for technical co-operation with those countries including the engagement of services of technical and professional experts in accordance with regulations established by the governor in council, the persons so engaged to be contractors and not servants of the crown, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister explain this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The purpose of this vote is to enable the fund which has been voted for the Colombo plan to be carried over and to be utilized in succeeding fiscal years. As
iMr. Abbott.]

the committee knows, it has not been possible to expend usefully all the money voted during the current year; and because of the long-range nature of the purposes for which the Colombo plan has been developed, it seemed desirable that provision should be made that funds of this kind, when voted, should not lapse at the end of the current fiscal year. That is the purpose of this particular vote. I am sure it is a case in which no question can be raised with regard to the use of a so-called dollar item in order to make this provision. This fund will be analogous-but not with the same purposes -to the Ottawa improvement fund. The moneys will be voted and they will be there when the bills come in to be paid and when the projects are approved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say how much will be left over at the end of this fiscal year to put into the fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure that I have readily available here how much would otherwise lapse, but I believe there is a fairly substantial amount.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will also be possible, will it not, for us to get a report on the operation of this fund after it has been established?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I had assumed that when the corresponding item in the main estimates is called, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would probably want to make a fairly complete statement as to the progress which was made. The sole purpose of this item is to make sure that the amount we voted in our main estimates last year will not lapse on March 31.


William Joseph Browne: Does that apply to the previous year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It covers both years. Last year we transferred it to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, as may be remembered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE General administration-
567.	Departmental administration-further amount required for the purchase of books and other reference material for the departmental library, $4,000.	.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to say just a word on this item. This additional amount in item 567 is to enable the department to purchase the library of the late Dr. Clark. I do not know that the purchase price will be exactly that amount, but Dr. Clark had an extremely valuable technical library consisting of publications and of books. The major part of those books and periodicals going

back a great many years will be of great value to the departmental library in the Department of Finance. While we have a sufficient amount in our general vote to enable us to buy this library, I felt that in the circumstances it would be more appropriate for me to put a special item in the supplementary estimates in order to call it to the attention of the house. I felt sure it would carry the warm support of all hon. members.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Certainly, speaking for myself-and I think for others- I would say that this seems to be a most appropriate thing and that the library will have a special value because of the association carried with it.


Mr. Lennard:: I certainly do not object to this item but I do not know why it is stated in the details that it is for office stationery, supplies and equipment. It makes a farce of details of this kind.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That happens to be the primary vote under which items of this kind are put. The purchase of books and periodicals comes under that item and that is why I made a special point of explaining that the particular types of books that were being acquired were the ones I have mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to municipalities-
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-*
568.	To provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act; and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of July 19, 1950, P.C. 3456, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein-further amount required including authority to regard the admiralty properties in the city of St. John's, Newfoundland, as federal property notwithstanding that formal transfer of administration has not been completed, $153,856.
George Randolph Pearkes: Does this include any addition to the grant to the municipality of Esquimau?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It does.


George Randolph Pearkes: I hoped my remarks made during the budget debate would have softened the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend will be happy to learn that the town of Esquimau will receive $42,114, which I am told is satisfactory.


William Joseph Browne: I notice this refers to the admiralty property in St. John's, Newfoundland. How much will St. John's receive as a result of this change which was made?
Supply-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a payment to St. John's arising out of the taking over of the admiralty property-I think that is what my hon. friend refers to-of $48,184. The amount required there will be covering arrears as well, of course, and local improvement grants.


Mr. Brooks:: What qualification is necessary for a municipality to receive a grant?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not suppose my hon. friend wants me to endeavour from memory to explain the rather complicated formula on which we make these grants to municipalities. Generally speaking, in order to obtain any grant under the general section the value of federal property in the municipality must exceed 4 per cent of the total assessed property in the municipality, and then 75 per cent of the excess is eligible for tax grant on the usual basis.
In addition we pay local improvement taxes, and then in addition where property is acquired from a municipality there is a tapering down transitional grant under a section of the Municipal Grants Act which permits payment of municipal taxes on a reducing scale over a period of a certain number of years, I think it is three or four years, and then it goes into the general fund.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What about crown companies?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Crown companies are handled on a separate basis. All crown companies are expected to make arrangements with the municipality for the payment of taxes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was thinking of my own town of Sussex. Do they get anything at all from this fund? Sussex, New Brunswick, has a military field and a number of other government properties.


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the present time Sussex does not receive a grant, no.


Gordon Graydon: I want to take but a moment of the committee's time in connection with this item. I have come to the very strong conviction with respect to the question of the relationship between the federal government and municipalities, particularly where there is a concentration of federal properties in that municipality, that some new arrangements should be made with respect to the payment of taxes by the federal authorities. That fact has been largely borne in upon some of us because Toronto township particularly has been experiencing considerable financial difficulties which are perhaps to be expected in the changing conditions that they find there. It seems to me that at the present time there is not very much justification really for the federal government not being

Supply-Finance
a taxpayer in the municipal field the same as anybody else. I know the minister has had arguments from time to time that seemed convincing at that time, but when they are applied practically I do not think they are very convincing at all.
I make this appeal to the minister and suggest to him that there should be some change in the legislation governing the relationship of the federal and municipal jurisdictions. You see what is happening in some of these places. Your department is charging the municipalities excise taxes on what they buy and at the same time you are not paying your share of taxes in the municipal field. I know that is a bald statement and perhaps oversimplifies the problem, and I have no desire to do that. I do want to point out to the minister, however, that in our own province-and perhaps it applies to other provinces as well-they have made themselves available for taxation by the municipalities. I can remember a year ago, when that was done in Ontario by act of the legislature, asking the minister if we were going to do that in the federal field, and the minister said, no, it was not the policy of the government at that time to do it.
I do not want to be unduly critical in this thing, but I am convinced in my own mind that it is the wrong principle to follow, and I have taken the opportunity of this discussion at this time to impress it again upon the minister. I think the whole thing should be reviewed, and there should be at least some classification, if you like, of federal property. It may be that there are some federal properties, although none come to my mind, that should not be taxed by the municipalities. Perhaps there are some instances, but the minister would know more about that than I do. The municipalities have to bear such a tremendous load now that in many instances they are unable to do it. Some review should be made of the legislation, and I ask the minister at this time to do it. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee discussing this matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend. As he knows, the present system was suggested to the house only after a great deal of study. It represented the best judgment we could exercise as to what should be done. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that it is the first time in the history of Canada since confederation that any federal government has attempted to pay anything in the way of municipal taxes to municipalities.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; no preceding government has ever attempted to do it. It was always stoutly resisted. We did work it out. It may be possible that the formula can be improved, but nevertheless it was arrived at after a great deal of careful study and, in my present view, represented a very great advance over what had existed before, and is reasonably fair. I do not suggest it is the last word, and I think perhaps we may continue to examine it; but it has provided a considerable measure of assistance to a great many municipalities where there was excessive concentration of federal property. But we can look into it again.


Mr. Tustin:: I should like to say to the minister that it was a step in the right direction, but I should also like to urge upon him the necessity of giving further consideration to this matter. I have in mind a very small municipality in my own constituency where the Department of National Defence expropriated a good part of the land for a bombing range. We were very glad to have that bombing range, but it made it extremely difficult for this small township to carry on. There is one other thing I should add to that. There are very many heavy vehicles travelling over the roads in that small township, and the township had to spend a considerable amount of money to try to keep up the roads. The Department of National Defence did make some small grant to that municipality to help it to maintain the roads. What I wanted to say particularly this afternoon was that the minister should give further consideration to this matter and endeavour to give some assistance to the smaller municipalities because of the fact that years ago the dominion government did not own nearly so much property as it owns today, and it is making it more difficult each year for some of the municipalities to carry on.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
569.	To authorize the write-off to consolidated deficit account of costs incurred in 1946 in engraving blank bonds in anticipation of a loan which did not materialize, $68,419.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister give the best explanation he can of this item? This is an amount of $68,419, and makes reference to the engraving of blank bonds. What kind of paper was used, and what kind of engraving?


Douglas Charles Abbott: After the close of the ninth victory loan in 1945, but before the time of Canada savings bonds, certain bonds were prepared in blank, in anticipation of a further

victory loan in 1946. As my hon. friend will appreciate, these victory loans were in substantial amounts. Engraved bonds, with all the security precautions, had to be prepared; and the Bank of Canada, as the fiscal agent of the government, arranged with the bank note companies to prepare the necessary bonds for a tenth victory loan issue. It was then decided that that would not be required. Those bonds have been held ever since. They are of no use for further bond issues; and this item is simply to write off that item in the books.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could they not be sold as wallpaper?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I dare say.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When this item was called, I was on my feet to ask a further question concerning item 568. I thought the hon. member who then spoke was going to make some further comment on that item. I wish to ask the minister a broader question which arises in connection with the municipal situation. This is a matter that was dealt with by my colleague, the hon. member for Ontario.
My question is this: Recognizing the difficulties with which municipalities are faced, quite apart from the special situation of government property which does not pay taxes, and which I shall not take time to discuss now, by reason of the fact that their sources of revenue have not expanded with their obligations, would the minister say a word as to whether the government feels that is a matter which would be a proper subject for consideration and discussion in the near future? Does he feel the whole question, that affecting the plight of the municipalities, is one which ought to be gone into?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not quite sure what my hon. friend wishes me to say. It is clear that all three levels of government-federal, provincial and local-have problems in raising the necessary money to defray the costs of the services their people demand. The municipalities undoubtedly have difficulty. I sympathize with the councils of municipalities who have to raise these moneys, because I know something of the problem, myself. Having to raise funds necessary to pay federal expenditures, I have known the problem for a long time.
The municipalities are the creatures of the provinces, as we know. They can obtain from the provinces such taxing powers as those provinces see fit to confer upon them within the constitutional limits imposed by the provinces. I have always felt it was improper that there should be direct financial discussion between the federal government and the municipalities because, as I have said,
Supply-Finance
the municipalities derive their power from and are the creatures of the provinces. Any discussion as to financial requirements of municipalities must, in the first and every instance, be directed to the legislative body which brings them into existence. Then in the discussions which take place from time to time between the provincial and federal governments it is quite proper of course to take into account all those discussions concerning the requirements of the junior taxing bodies in the provinces.
But, other than that, I do not think it would be proper for me to express any opinion. I would feel strongly that there should not be any general discussion as to the division of taxing authority between federal and municipal authorities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speaking again with respect to item 569, may I ask how much money there is in this consolidated deficit account?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I would have to take that question as notice.


Mr. Low:: It is a minus quantity.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can assure my hon. friend
it is not carried as an asset.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Item 570.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest that we take items 570 and 571 together.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
570.	To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current and arrears payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year -further amount required, $532,715.
571.	To authorize and provide for a further special government contribution to reduce the unamortized portion of the civil service superannuation account liability, $25,000,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister tell us exactly where the fund stands. Is the amount of $532,715 actuarially correct? Where does the contribution of $25 million leave the actuarial position?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The $532,715 is required for the current year contribution, and really represents an underestimation in the main estimates. The additional amount required is due primarily to some salary increases, and more particularly to the fact that there are a number of civil servants who have been given permanent status during the year, and therefore a larger amount is required for the current government contribution.
Then, as to the status of the fund itself, perhaps the committee would like me to give a brief review of the situation as it is at the moment. At December 31, 1947, the total

Supply-Finance
estimated liability was $341,149,000 and the balance in the accounts amounted to $89,544,000, leaving a deficit of $251,605,000. By December 31,	1951, the deficit had
increased to an estimated $312,000,000, even after a special contribution in the amount of $75,000,000 had been made.
This deficit position was carefully studied in order to determine what should be done to reduce it and to prevent the creation of a new one. The deficit had been caused almost entirely by two main factors. First, the government had only matched contributions of employees for their current service and not those for their prior service and, secondly, since the contribution rates are calculated on the basis of a normal progression up the established salary scales, when there is a general salary increase, the contributions already made are actually inadequate in relation to the larger pension which will be received.
I indicated that the government proposed to continue the policy initiated at the close of 1950-51 to wipe out the accumulated deficit by means of bulk contributions over a reasonable period, and in order that the causes of that deficit would not continue to have effect I indicated my intention to show on the government balance sheet the full estimated actuarial liability of the superannuation fund at the end of each fiscal year and to credit to the account each year thereafter an amount equal to interest reckoned at 4 per cent calculated on the amount of the full actuarial liability of the fund rather than on the actual balance in the fund.
In the final supplementary estimates last year, I included an item to make up for the portion of the deficit related to past service contributions which had not been matched. A further item was included in those estimates to match the increase in the net liability of the fund which was created by the general salary increase, effective December 1, 1951, and finally a third item in those estimates constituted a bulk contribution to further write down the existing deficit. These contributions reduced the outstanding deficit in the account to $214,000,000 as of March 31, 1952.
Reference to the public accounts for 1951-52 will indicate quite clearly to hon. members that the policy which I announced last year at this time is being followed.
Item 571 in the estimates now before us is simply a further bulk contribution designed to reduce the outstanding deficit in the account from $214,000,000 to $189,000,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How does the position compare with that of two or three years ago?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The high was $312,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we take items 573, 574 and 575 together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Fish culture and development branch-
573.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $350,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
574.	Headquarters administration-further amount required, $8,000.
Special-
575.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the approval of the governor in council-further amount required, $10,000.


William Joseph Browne: Would the minister make a statement?


James Sinclair: The first item has to do with a slide on the Babine river, which is one of the tributaries of the Skeena and one of the important salmon streams in the west. A little over a year ago the salmon were noticed falling back in the river. An aeroplane was flown over and it was found that quite an amount of the bank had slid in and choked the river, something similar to what happened at Hell's Gate in 1913. Last summer the department built by day labour a 60-mile road into the slide and last fall we let a contract for $498,000 to the General Construction Company, who were the lowest tenderers, for the removal of the slide before April 30, 1953. This is the time of low water when the work can be done and when no salmon are passing. The amount required in this fiscal year toward that contract is the $350,000 covered by this item.


Howard Charles Green: Will the work be finished on time?


James Sinclair: The contract is to be finished by April 30 and it contains a penalty clause for every day thereafter. We are quite sure that it will be finished. The work is going very well according to the reports of our own engineers.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
574.	Headquarters administration-further amount required, $8,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Has any decision been arrived at with respect to the headquarters of the fisheries research board in the east?


James Sinclair: The reason for this extra $8,000 is the decision which was taken by the fisheries research board of Canada to bring their publications up to date. The amount of research in the laboratories has been outrunning the facilities to publish the results of their experiments and the fishing industry is most anxious that these be made available. Last year we had a special item of $14,200 for the publication of the scientific research by research stations and experimental stations. That work has gone out and this extra item will enable them to bring their publications up to date.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has there been any decision about the headquarters in the east?


James Sinclair: The question of establishing headquarters of the new northwest Atlantic fisheries commission will be made by the commission, which is composed of representatives of ten governments. Two towns in eastern Canada and one United States town are being considered.


William Joseph Browne: When will the report of the fisheries research board be out?


James Sinclair: I must confess that I do not know whether it is out or not. It should be out very shortly because they had their annual meeting over a month ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-[DOT]
575.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the approval of the governor in council-further amount required, $10,000.
William Joseph Browne: Could we
have an explanation of this item?


James Sinclair: The availability of supplies of bait at convenient centres has long been one of the difficulties facing the fishing industry and different plans to overcome it have been tried. Order in council P.C. 3451 of August 3, 1948, established regulations for providing assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities. These provide for assistance in the provision, maintenance and operation of bait freezing and storage facilities up to a maximum of $10,000 in each case.
In the main estimates last year $30,000 was provided for the three applications which it was expected would be processed that year. Actually a fourth bait depot at Jordan Bay, Yarmouth county, Nova Scotia, is being considered and this extra $10,000 is for that purpose. There is a fifth application presently being studied by the department.


William Joseph Browne: Where are they?
Supply-Fisheries


James Sinclair: Two in Nova Scotia and three in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: Where are they in Newfoundland?


James Sinclair: East Coast Fisheries Limited, Colinet island, St. Mary's Bay, Newfoundland; East Coast Fisheries Limited, branch, St. Mary's Bay, Newfoundland; Fishery Products Limited, Trepassey Bay, Newfoundland. No decision has been arrived at or these three as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
576.	Office of the secretary to the Governor General-further amount required, $50,000.
Frank Exton Lennard: I should like to have a little more information on this. Why was not a similar amount required in the years 1946 to 1953?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow this item to stand and I will ask the Prime Minister to come in. It is to bring last year's arrangements in line. As my hon. friend will recall, the present Governor General is not subject to income tax on his income.


Frank Exton Lennard: I might ask at the same time-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shall we allow the item to stand?


Frank Exton Lennard: Was not the previous Governor General subject to income tax in his own country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe not.


Frank Exton Lennard: I would like to know.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not with respect to his Canadian income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of Finance make it clear that the Governor General is free from income tax with respect to his income from the government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe that is correct, but I am speaking from memory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He pays income tax on his private income, but not on his salary of approximately $50,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Ten thousand pounds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His salary of $48,667 is not subject to income tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall send for the Prime Minister. I might say that there is a similar item in the main estimates which will come forward, so perhaps we could pass this.

Supply-National Research Council


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that there is a similar item in the main estimates but-[DOT]


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us not have a discussion on it in the absence of the Prime Minister.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Pensions and other benefits-
589.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations-further amount required, $1,224.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might give a word of explanation about this item. When we amend the scale of pensions under the Pension Act there is one group of Canadian airmen who were on loan to the civilian operated schools who do not qualify for pensions under the act and we have to introduce a supplementary item to bring their pensions up to the same scale. Next year an appropriate provision will be made in the main estimates.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could you not amend the Pension Act?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have wondered about that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD National research council-[DOT]
590.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, w^ks, land and new equipment-further amounted required, $725,450.
Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation of this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: When the main estimates for 1952-53 were being prepared, a very careful review was made of the estimated requirements for the various construction projects. After due consideration of the nature of this project and comparison with expenditures made in previous years on other construction projects it did not appear that expenditures on this project would exceed $1,300,000 for this fiscal year.
The progress made on this project throughout the year has been outstanding. Progress payments for the first seven months of this fiscal year amounted to $1,199,984. Although the monthly progress payments for the


remainder of the fiscal year will be on a lower scale, it is quite evident that the amount provided in the main estimates will not be sufficient to meet requirements for this project. A number of transfers of anticipated savings were made between allotments in this vote to provide funds to continue the progress payments. Finally it was found necessary to request authorization to make temporary loans from other projects where liquidation of encumbrances were not anticipated until near the end of the fiscal year, in order to avoid work stoppage on this project.


Howard Charles Green: What project is this?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are various projects for the electrical engineering and radio building of the national research council at the large project out on the Montreal road. The progress of work has been much more rapid than was expected when we prepared the estimates a little over a year ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic energy control board-
Atomic energy project (now Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) -
591.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $310,000.
Howard Charles Green: Could I have a brief explanation of this and the following item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The main item here is the additional cost involved in connection with the accident. You know the difficulty with the one pile at Chalk River- This is the additional expense which will be incurred in this year in connection with repairs to that first pile.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the total amount?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are asking for an extra $310,000. The original vote was $7,089,371.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand that the cost of repairs is small, approximately half a million dollars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be. I think the work is well advanced and we are asking for an extra $310,000. It has been possible to make some transfers from other allotments.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is much less than was expected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now revert to item 576, governor general and lieutenant governors, $50,000.


[Stage Direction]
576.	Office of the secretary to the Governor General-further amount required, 50,000,
Mr. Si. Laurent:: 
Frank Exton Lennard: I want it understood that I was not objecting to the amount. I was merely seeking information.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Quite so.


Mr. Murphy:: I think the minister did not finish his explanation with respect to item 591.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are on item 576.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We can deal with that later if the hon. member wishes to do so, but let us conclude the discussion on item 576.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all appreciate the remarks the Prime Minister has made as to this item. I know that any criticism anyone offers of this kind of item is sometimes looked upon as carping, but it does seem to me that the total cost of the establishment at government house is getting to be quite a large figure. If my arithmetic is correct, if I can add at least as well as some of those who have been trying to add this afternoon, we will now be spending on the salary of the Governor General and the maintenance of government house a total of $228,129 a year. That includes the salary of the Governor General of $48,667, the $10,000 salary of the secretary, which is provided for in two parts, and something over $170,000 for the office of the secretary, including the running of government house and various allowances. I am looking at page 26.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is not a new item. It will be $206,224.
3358	HOUSE OF
Supply-Governor General's Office


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, the items are on page 26. One has to break them down because they include the lieutenant governors as well. One has to pick out the items that relate to the Governor General and the administration of government house. I think my figures will stand up, and they add up to $228,129. The items on the page include $177,000 for the lieutenant governors. If you subtract that, you arrive at my figure. It is just a question, Mr. Chairman, whether that is not a little too large a sum for this establishment.
I know that comparisons are always difficult to make, and this one may be a bit embarrassing; but I cannot help but compare what it costs for us to maintain the Governor General and his residence with what we pay to the Prime Minister and the maintenance of his residence. It is a much smaller figure. I believe there is $23,000 altogether in salaries and allowances, and $25,000 for the maintenance of that house. We are in a rather awkward position. The Governor General is the titular head of the country, yet he is appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister who is the political leader of the country. There seems to be a great difference between the $25,000 for the maintenance of one establishment and the $228,000 for the maintenance of the other establishment. I hear people say that the Prime Minister does not have to entertain, but I understand he does have to do a certain amount of entertaining.
The suggestion was made that the Governor General should not be required to dip into his own funds. We pay him this salary of $48,667, which is not subject to income tax, although it has been pointed out that he pays income tax on his own private income. Now, the Prime Minister says that there have been few changes in the total amount we have paid for this establishment since 1914. I have not the books before me to look up the figures for the various years that far back. I am interested, however, in the figures for the year ending March 31, 1952. The amount requested by the Minister of Finance for the Governor General at that time represented a slight reduction. In other words, in that year apparently some effort was made to cut down the total amount being spent for this establishment, and there was a reduction in this very item we are now discussing of $2,468 as compared with the 1950-51 fiscal year. It seems strange that it was possible, just two or three years ago, to apply the concept of economy and pare things down a bit at government house, but now we are told that there has been this substantial increase of $50,000. I understand that this increase is in relation to the allowances for

the purchase of goods, the hiring of help and so on. You have to look at that in relation to what was spent on allowances before. The amount before was $50,000, so it is not just a little increase in proportion to the current rise in the cost of living, it is actually a doubling of that amount. The Minister of Finance has had a fair amount to say about this item that is now before us being comparable to the item in the main estimates. May I point out that the item in the main estimates is, in effect, the beginning of a new policy of paying $100,000 of allowances instead of $50,000. This policy does not begin until the start of the new fiscal year on April 1. We are now being called upon to make this increase retroactive to last April 1. Frankly, I wonder whether there is not room, even with all the respect that we have for the office and the respect and regard we have for the person who occupies the office, for the kind of economy approach that was tried back in 1951-52, rather than this substantial increase.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to object to this item. I must say that I do not altogether agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. When we consider that the Governor General represents the sovereign in this country, and when we realize the tremendous expense the sovereign must be to the people of England-to which I understand we make no contribution-I think the contribution which we in this country make to the Governor General is certainly not out of line for a country of our size and wealth.
My understanding from what the Prime Minister said is that it is costing us $5,000 a month more for the upkeep of the present Governor General that it did in the past; that is $60,000 a year. In his remarks he said he thought the Canadian people would wish to pay this amount in order to maintain the standard which we, as a great country, should have.
I should like to say that I feel the Canadian people should have been ashamed of the niggardly fashion in which they have treated governors general in the past. It seems to me that if we have been paying $60,000 too little in the past to our governors general, it is time we were bringing that position up to the standard of a country like Canada.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was aware, in a general way, that the situation was difficult before Lord Alexander retired, but I did not know what the actual figures were. When the situation was brought to our attention some months ago, it was gone into, and I can assure hon. members that it was very carefully checked because we were not at all

anxious to have to bring before parliament any recommendations for the change in the allowances that were made just after there had been a change in the incumbent of that high office. The officials went into the figures very carefully with the comptroller. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feels that there could be economies made, and that was looked into. It was found that in the actual expenditures, there did not seem to be any item that could be dispensed with without changing the scale on which the responsibilities of representing the sovereign were discharged in Canada.
This being the situation, it was felt that this recommendation should be made. The hon. member says there is a difference between the expenses there and the expenses of the house provided for the Prime Minister. Well, there is a very substantial difference in the size of the two establishments and the number of personnel required for their proper upkeep. All of that does have to be taken into account.


Solon Earl Low: And the office work is done at Rideau Hall.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This amount does not only provide living accommodation for government house, it also provides for the whole administrative branch of the Governor General's office. In addition to the amounts that are required for the upkeep of 24 Sussex street, there are offices supplied to me here in the central block, there are offices supplied in the east block and there is personnel supplied to assist me in the discharge of my duties. All similar personnel is included in the details that are given on page 214 of the estimates for the Governor General's office.
The hon. member for Royal is quite right. This is an extremely modest sum when compared with the substantial sums that have to be provided out of the budget of the United Kingdom for the maintenance of the office of our beloved Queen of all the countries of the commonwealth. He is quite right. There is no contribution made by the Canadian public for the maintenance of the dignity of the monarchy as it exists for the benefit of all the countries of the commonwealth.
In each of the countries of the commonwealth there is a representative of the sovereign. But from what we know of the establishment out at Rideau Hall I do not think any of us feels that for the Canadian nation it is an extravagant establishment. I do not think that the travelling done by His Excellency in visiting the various parts of Canada is not worth, for the maintenance of our institutions, the amounts that are expended to have us all, from one ocean to the other, 68108-2131
Supply-Governor General's Office realize that although we have our provincial legislatures we have a central authority, a central parliament that is the parliament of all of us and at the head of which is the personal representative of the sovereign of all the commonwealth countries.


George James Tustin: The Prime Minister in his remarks mentioned the fact that the salary of the secretary to the governor general was in two parts. I notice that in the estimates the statutory amount of $2,400 is set out.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


George James Tustin: Then we are asked to vote $7,600 to make his total salary $10,000.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


George James Tustin: I wonder why it is done in that way?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is done in that way because at the time the office was established at confederation the salary of the secretary of the Governor General was fixed at $2,400, and that statute has never been changed. But it was found, over the years, that it had to be supplemented. Perhaps it would have been wiser to amend the statute itself; but instead the practice that has been followed ever since the first increase was made in the $2,400 is that of having it made through the estimates.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to ask a simple question of the Minister of Finance. Am I to understand that the representative at government house is to get an increase in salary of $50,000 a year, additional to the $50,000 for expenses?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in the salary.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there is no change in the salary. The salary is the salary that is fixed, I think, in the British North America Act itself. The allowance was $50,000 and it is now being made $100,000. But that is the expense allowance. I can assure the hon. gentleman that not only the expense allowance but also the salary is spent in the maintenance of the office.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The reason I asked that question is this. At the time we were getting a Canadian representative, it was quite common talk that this procedure was going to save the Canadian nation a great deal of money; that is, in having a Canadian representative.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I never heard that
suggestion.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Now it is costing $50,000 more per year.

Supply-Public Works


Solon Earl Low: I just want to say that I agree with the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister is quite right. It we are going to maintain in this country the monarchical form that is represented by His Excellency the Governor General, then we have to make it a dignified institution, My own calculations tell me that the amount of money that is being spent to maintain that institution is not in any way excessive. In fact I think it is well spent. The time of change from one incumbent of the office to another is the time we would discover if there was any disparity between what should be spent and what it was possible to spend under the old arrangement. If I am informed correctly, under the former governor general many of the staff members stayed on out of sheer loyalty, and at salaries and wages which were much below what they could have demanded elsewhere.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; and we felt that what was necessary had to be provided as soon as Lord Alexander left the office.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. I thought that point should be brought out because when new staff are hired they certainly ought to be hired at going wages and salaries, which would naturally push up the cost. I just wanted to support the Prime Minister and say that I think he is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: I understand that the hon. member for Lambton West had a question to ask on item 592.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He has left. If he gets back before we get through, it can be dealt with.


Howard Charles Green: When that item came up the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not in the chamber. He is here now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is this item 591?


Howard Charles Green: No; item 592. The parliamentary assistant is here now. Perhaps he might explain.


[Stage Direction]
Atomic energy control board-
592.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, and to provide for payment to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing and other works constructed at Deep River during 1952-53-further amount required, $666,750.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I could give an explanation. I am informed that this supplementary estimate is required in order to transfer expenditures properly chargeable to

construction or acquisition of buildings, et cetera, but budgeted for under construction of the new reactor. It is really a transfer item.


Howard Charles Green: No. Item 592 has something to do with housing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has nothing to do with housing at all. It is a transfer item.


Howard Charles Green: It says "Construction or acquisition of buildings".


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the title of the primary item; but the explanation is as I have given it, that the original vote was $2,852,000 and this supplementary item for $666,000 is required in order to transfer expenditures properly chargeable to construction or acquisition of buildings, et cetera, but budgeted for under construction of the new reactor. I have the details of it here, if my hon. friend would like to have them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-further amount required-
600. Nova Scotia ($21,000, less the amount of $20,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1952-53 for this province), $1.
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I should like to have an explanation of this item with special reference to Nova Scotia.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a dollar item, Mr. Chairman, and a quite appropriate dollar item. Provision was made in the main estimates for the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry project, to prepare plans for the construction of new dock facilities at Yarmouth. It is now desired to actually acquire a site and this dollar item permits the vote, which is sufficient to cover that amount, to be used for that purpose.


Percy Chapman Black: This is only put in as a dollar item. How does the department tell? How is it going to get the money necessary to meet the expenditure?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is already voted, but voted for plans, and not a broad enough vote to cover acquiring a site.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Dominion bureau of statistics-
605. Statistics-further amount required, $99,278.
Frank Exton Lennard: There is a matter that I wanted to bring to the minister's attention in connection with statistics, and it will not take many minutes for me to do so. I might as well do it now as later on this session. In my opinion some of the officials of the bureau of statistics have an exalted idea of the effectiveness of what they consider to be some bright ideas in the field of obtaining figures. I might refer to two forms, namely E 60A and E 49, that are put out by the bureau of statistics. They are questionnaires that are handled by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. These questionnaires are very simple, though some of the questions are hard to answer.
Please help by answering these questions. For use of dominion bureau of statistics in estimating total tourist and travelling expenditures.
1.	Number of persons in your car including driver.
2.	Length of stay in the United States.
3.	Approximate total amount spent in the United States on this visit by you and those in your car for all purposes (examples: gas, oil, repairs, lodging, food, beverages, merchandise, amusement, etc.).
On about six occasions during the past six months I have crossed and recrossed the border at very widely separated points from Alberta to Quebec, and on only two occasions was I questioned. On both those occasions I could not give a correct answer because I did not know. These questionnaires are not signed. The person's name is not included on them. I would be safe in saying that answers to them represent not more than 50 per cent of the people who cross the border during the year at various points. The cost of these forms was brought down in an order for return some weeks ago. They have cost something over $50,000 in the past several years. That would not include the cost of operations. I feel that it is money thrown down the drain; that it is money wasted to supply forms and questionnaires such as these at a border point because all it has is a nuisance value. It is irritating.
I have a form here that is supposed to be answered by visitors from the United States. They do not have to answer it; it is not compulsory. If it is answered I would say that nine times out of ten the wrong answer is given, because even if the individual thinks he is giving the right answer I am sure it will be the wrong one. I know that is what happened in my case. On one occasion I gave an answer that I thought was the correct one, but twenty-four hours later I realized that I had not included any figure for the cost of my gasoline because I was obtaining my gasoline through the credit system. I should have added at least $10 a day for my expenses while I was in the United States last fall.
Supply-Transport
It is ridiculous for the bureau of statistics to think they can obtain proper information from such inquiries as these. I am quite sure that they do not, and it is money wasted. The Minister of Finance wants to know where we can save money. This is a small amount, but I daresay if the number of employees that have to service these forms was taken into consideration it would probably run into several hundred thousand dollars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will see that my hon. friend's remarks are brought to the attention of the bureau.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
609.	Operation, maintenance and repairs-further amount required, $60,000.
Howard Charles Green: Can the parliamentary assistant give us a brief explanation of these different items?


Mr. Benidickson:: This one is an additional amount required over what was foreseen when the main estimates were brought down for repairs. It is the cost of repairing the bow of an icebreaker which was damaged in the ice in the waters off Labrador, I think in July of last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
610.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $6,760.
William Joseph Browne: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could give us an explanation of each of these items.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, there may be a general explanation. These items represent small amounts by which we underestimated the requirements of these particular primaries. For instance, in the case of this item, it is an additional amount to cover the final settlement with Newfoundland Shipyards Limited in connection with the construction of the Newfoundland general service work boat Sea Beacon.


William Joseph Browne: What was the price?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The amount voted was a very large amount, $4,351,000, but I have not the figure for that particular boat.


William Joseph Browne: It would be only a small amount.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The next little item, $1,145, is an additional requirement to provide for the

Supply-Transport
extension of a grant made to the provincial department of education, Vancouver, British Columbia in respect of an agreement covering the training of able seamen at the port of Vancouver, and the others are of a like nature. The largest is item 614, which has to do with the St. Lawrence ship channel. There is, as the committee is aware, an outstanding contract on a quantity basis. If dredging proceeds a little more rapidly in a given year there is an additional amount required, and this represents in fact an underestimate of the amount of dredging that would have to be paid for during the year.


Percy Chapman Black: What was the total expenditure last year on the St. Lawrence dredging work?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I have that amount readily available, but I may be able to get it in a moment and I will give it to my hon. friend. The main estimate would show that. Perhaps I can answer my hon. friend's question by saying that parliament has already voted $2,821,326, and this additional amount of $311,978 will bring it up to something over $3 million.


Percy Chapman Black: As I remember it, there is an outstanding contract covering a five-year period running to $13 million on the St. Lawrence, if my recollection serves me correctly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can tell us what has been spent up to date.


William Moore Benidickson: No, I do not have it on an annual basis, but the hon. member is correct that the total contract runs to approximately $13 million over a five-year period. This is simply extra work that was done this year, and of course will come off the total contract.


Percy Chapman Black: Is this extra work supplementary to the contract that is outstanding, or is it on account of the contract? If it is on account of the contract, why is not the entire $13 million available for disbursement, if it has been earned on the contract and the contract has been let?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Because we only estimate each year roughly how much cash will be required for this contract. We do not vote an amount for five years. This years we voted $2,821,326 against whatever payment would be required tills year under that $13 million contract. In fact dredging was done to require this extra payment of $311,000 odd.


Howard Charles Green: That does not represent any change in policy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No change in policy, no change in price.


Howard Charles Green: Merely that more work was done than was expected would be done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Precisely.


William Moore Benidickson: Favourable weather,
equipment available.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister tell the committee who the contractor is for this $13 million that has been authorized over a period of five years.


William Moore Benidickson: Marine Industries Limited of Sorel, after calling for tenders on March 10, 1952.


Percy Chapman Black: Tenders were called. I should like to know whether tenders were received.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Tenders were received.


Percy Chapman Black: Or whether the tender was allotted to the one contractor.


William Moore Benidickson: There was an additional tenderer, and the lowest tender was accepted.


Percy Chapman Black: How many tenders were received.


William Moore Benidickson: Two, I believe.


Percy Chapman Black: Who was the other tenderer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Canadian Dredge and Dock Company Limited, Toronto, whose tender price was $13,943,500.


Percy Chapman Black: And the successful tender was how much?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was $13,021,900.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
North Sydney, Nova Scotia-Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, car ferry and terminals deficit, 1952-
615. To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1952-53 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in the payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the North Sydney, Nova Scotia -Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1952, $1,915,532.
William Joseph Browne: Would the Minister of Finance explain the word "deficit" used in this item? At the present time and for the last two years construction has been going on at North Sydney, Nova Scotia.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: It
being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	231,	for	the	relief	of	Rolande
Jacqueline Lortie Nugent.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Alice Cecilia Anne Magniac Parker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Therese Mon-ette Lax.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Paul Edward Tremblay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	235,	for	the	relief	of	Maurice
Leveille.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	236,	for	the	relief	of	Bernard
Gordon Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Anne O'Connor Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Beryl Mildred Taylor Leckie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	239,	for	the relief of Eileen
Margaret Amos Trudeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Florence Mae Mitchell Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Sidney William Donald Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Adele Roberta Jeffrey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Margaret Bell Favreau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Lena Herman Besner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Muriel Luella Sproston Kerr.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Ruth Steirman Fernley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Milorad Aragian.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Kenneth Angus Eaton Hewitt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Delia Fleurette Ayotte Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Clarence Albert Edwards.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Issie Adler.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Jean Shelving-ton Parnell Adams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Peggy Louise Miller McCallum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Jean Paul Gauthier.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Bernice Catherine MacDonald Crawford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Horst Wilhelm Wossidlo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Nick Sau-chuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Rita Frost Siversky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Beatrice Got-lieb Slobotsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Georgina Julia Rose Charland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Margaret Violet Creasor McKenna.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Kathleen Snell Meloche.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Henry George Maxham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Marjorie Evelyn Lee Stevens.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Queenie Isabel Brambell Muchan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Bessie Mabel Witcomb Elson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 267,. for the relief of Catherine Maine McKenzie Woods.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Robert Edward Francis Clements.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Agnes Jackson Stroud Earle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Irene Gray Brideau.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois Crowe, otherwise known as Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois Cockell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Janina Jenny Spaiches Remeikis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Ruth Sanel Kolofsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Pauline Tratenberg Goldman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Molly Klau Lust.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Charlotte Freeman Pelletier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Olive Spencer Thompson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Dorothy Sanger Anderson Morris.-Mr. Winkler.


Agar Rodney Adamson: the second reading of Bill No. 224, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is very simple. It is based upon a reduction of the force needed to carry out the work of an election on election day, through the elimination of the necessity of having candidates' agents at each poll.
At the present time there is a practice, which is fairly general, by which all candidates-certainly all candidates in opposition to the government party-appoint scrutineers

Canada Elections Act
at each polling place, in order to see that the poll is conducted fairly. In my opinion the majority of that work is unnecessary. Nevertheless, unless there is some machinery set up whereby each polling place can be manned by officers who represent the two opposing political interests, the necessity for those scrutineers, officially known as agents at the polls, will be continued. And no candidate I know of-speaking for myself, I certainly would not-would be prepared to do without having agents at the polls, even though I am reasonably convinced that the polls are operated honestly and according to the act.
The first part of this bill makes an amendment to section 26(4) of the Canada Elections Act, whereby the poll clerk is appointed through the constituency returning officer, but by the right of the candidate representing the party which obtained the highest number of votes at the last preceding federal election, with the proviso that if the highest number of votes was obtained by a candidate supporting the leader of the government, then the candidate obtaining the next highest number of votes would appoint the poll clerk.
This would result in the deputy returning officer being, as he is at the present time, an appointee of the returning officer for the riding, and the poll clerk being an appointee of the candidate representing the party which obtained the highest number of votes, not being the party of the leader of the government.
Under the act at the present time the situation is that the riding returning officers are appointed by order in council.	The
government is responsible for the election, and I think that is perfectly right and proper. The returning officers, however, are appointees of the governor in council, of the leader of the government, and appointees of the party in power. They have the responsibility of choosing the deputy returning officers, who are their appointees	and
consequently are adherents or supporters of the government in power.
The deputy returning officers, in turn, appoint poll clerks; and the poll clerks are therefore, under our present regulations, supporters of the party in power. You have, therefore, a complete chain of the party in power-returning officer to deputy returning officer to poll clerk. The consequence is that any candidate not being a member or a supporter of the party in power, is forced to provide agents at the polls. The providing of agents at polls is one of the great expenses of election day. The average number of polls per constituency in Ontario is 140. Assuming that the candidate pays his agents
[Mr. Adamson.1
a minimum of $5 per day and provides them, as he generally does, with lunch and transportation and other things-


Mr. Mutch:: Do you have to pay them? Never heard of it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am speaking of what are the facts.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is Toronto.


Agar Rodney Adamson: His total expense will run to hundreds of dollars, and in my opinion that is largely unnecessary. The amendment I am proposing to make the poll clerk a member of a party in opposition to the government would eliminate any chance of suspicion that a poll was not adequately carried out. The providing of agents, as I have said, is an expensive matter to the candidate, yet their functions are not of great use. However, a candidate would find it most difficult to dispense with their services. I would not be prepared to advocate that that be done. That is the basic reason for this amendment. I am trying to simplify operations on election day and cut down the expenses of non-government candidates, and make the poll a less congested place than it is at the present time.
Since I introduced this bill I have received a number of communications from people who have been deputy returning officers, who tell me that they agree with the principle of the bill as in their opinion agents at the polls are unnecessary. As I have said, that is one of the unnecessary expenses to which the non-government candidate is put on election day. So much for the basic principle of this amendment.
The term I have used, "leader of the government" is a term used in the office consolidation of the Canadian forces voting regulations in subsection 50, where both the terms "leader of the government" and "leader of the opposition" are mentioned specifically. This bill provides that the representative of the party which led the poll or ran second to the successful candidate can appoint the poll clerks. In other words, in a constituency not held by the Social Credit or the C.C.F. party, where their representatives ran second to the government candidate in 1949, they would be entitled to appoint the poll clerks.
There is also a provision in the bill that if a candidate representing an opposing political interest is not capable of appointing poll clerks the - returning officer shall have the right to do so as he sees fit. There is a time limit on the appointment of poll clerks of two days following nominations, which gives 12 days from nominations in most constituencies and 26 days in others in which the appointment of poll clerks can be made. In other words, poll clerks must be appointed

12 days prior to the date of polling. So much for the first part of the bill.
The second part of the bill deals with advance polls. I find that the Revised Statutes of Canada differ in some particulars from the green election book A-34 as far as advance polls are concerned. The Revised Statutes of Canada, being the official statutes, take precedence over the general election instructions for returning officers. If the point which I now bring to the attention of the house is not cleared up prior to election day there may be some confusion in connection with one or two constituencies.
For instance, in the Revised Statutes of Canada, which we have not as yet received but which I have seen, there is no provision for advance polls at Atikokan, and I think at one or two other places, whereas Atikokan is definitely named in the instructions. It is a simple matter, but it is one which I feel should be cleared up before the general election takes place.
There is one other remark I should like to make with respect to part II of the bill. The township of Etobicoke, which makes up a large part of the constituency of York West, is not mentioned as a place where an advance poll can be established. The townships of Scarborough, York North, York and York East, all being very largely urban municipalities at the present time, have the right to have advance polls, but the township of Etobicoke with a population of over 60,000 does not have that right. I would earnestly request that the house give the township of Etobicoke the right to have advance polls so that it will be treated the same as these other townships in the Toronto metropolitan district.
I realize that introducing a bill to amend a complicated piece of legislation such as the Canada Elections Act at this stage of the session presents some difficulties. However, the amendments I am suggesting are simple in character, and I would ask the government to give earnest consideration to them. In my opinion they would simplify operations at the polls on election day. They would provide for the manning of the polls to be done by two opposing political interests, thus avoiding the necessity of having candidates' agents at the polls and reducing very materially the expense that every candidate who is not a government candidate must assume to carry out the functions which in the name of his party he is bound to carry out on election day.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house provides for four distinct amendments. I have noted what my hon. friend has said about Atikokan and' the township of 68108

Supply-Transport
Etobicoke. I am sure we will give consideration particularly to these matters because they affect the taking of the vote immediately.
On the other hand, the question of the poll clerk being an appointee of a political party instead of an appointee of the deputy returning officer is new to me, and certainly in my recollection it is new to the elections committee. I take it that the other amendment he suggests is the reason for that change, and that the thought behind it is to cut down the cost of holding elections on election day. Therefore I assure him that the government will give serious consideration to these suggestions.
I would point out, however, that the chief electoral officer has been away a good deal in the past two months and we have not had an opportunity to discuss with him the import and consequences of the amendments suggested. Therefore, on the understanding that I will have that discussion with him, I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
The Depuiy Chairman: We were considering item 615, Department of Transport.


William Joseph Browne: Before the parliamentary assistant commences the explanation, I had not finished what I had to say. I have gone through the estimates of last year and have added up the amounts of money that were voted for this particular project. As I said, there are terminals at North Sydney where the ferry receives freight and passengers for transportation to Port aux Basques in Newfoundland. At the other end of the run, at Port aux Basques, the government is now building new terminal facilities. But I do not see where any question of a deficit comes into the picture. It is a capital expenditure that is being made there.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member for St. John's West is perfectly right that this item is appearing for the first time in the estimates, and in view of that I think the committee should have a brief explanation. The operation of the ferry service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques is an obligation of Canada under article 32 (1) of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. The present ferries and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques form part of the Newfoundland railway and steamship facilities that were acquired by Canada under

Supply-Transport
the confederation pact. These were entrusted to the Canadian National Railways for operation and management effective April 1, 1949.
The deficits in the operation of the ferry service have been included up to now in the accounts of the Canadian National Railways. In May, 1950, the government, in considering ways and means of relieving the Canadian National Railways of heavy annual deficits, decided that the operation of the ferry service was an obligation of the government as part of the terms of union with Newfoundland, and that the deficits in operation should not be assumed by the railways but should be provided for as a direct obligation of the government. It is proposed that this be done from January 1 of 1952. If my hon. friend will look at the next item in the supplementary estimates he will see that we have a similar item there for the operating deficit of a similar service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island.


William Joseph Browne: If I understand the parliamentary assistant aright, it means that the Canadian National Railways handle goods and passengers arriving at North Sydney, put them on board the steamer, take them across and collect any moneys for the goods and passengers that are transported.


William Moore Benidickson: No.


William Joseph Browne: The cost of that operation is then charged to the C.N.R., whereas the freight may be paid in Toronto or Montreal.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend will remember that we had a discussion recently in the railways and shipping committee on a similar point, and I can assure him that revenues from through freight and express are credited to the ferry service on a pro rata mileage basis. Passenger revenue, including cabins and berths and so on, are credited on an actual mileage basis for the type of transportation that is used. With respect to meals, mail and other revenue, these are credited. I might put the revenues for the past year on the record. Receipts from passengers, freight, express, cabins, meals and mail amounted to $987,368. Expenses, which were operation and maintenance of ferries, docks and yard tracks, and stevedoring, etc. amounted to $2,902,900, so that the net operating deficit was $1,915,532. But the value of the transport from the mainland to Newfoundland is credited pro rata for the various services that are performed, even though some of these items may be on a through basis.


William Joseph Browne: This seems an extraordinary item, because if there is any point at which the enterprise should be profitable it is between North Sydney and St. John's, Newfoundland. The steamer is filled with goods going across, and it is generally filled with passengers each way. In addition, there must be a subsidy for carrying the mail.
Is the parliamentary assistant satisfied in his own mind that everything that should be credited to that operation is credited to it? I do not know whether he was in the committee on railways and shipping yesterday when I was given information by the general manager concerning a question which I had asked about the movement of freight over that line. I was told that that was a difficult thing to say because the freight was collected at certain places, and it would involve an enormous amount of trouble to see how much of it should be credited between Port aux Basques and Sydney.


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend will recall that part of the difficulty was with the matter of allocating head office expenses and the like. This is considered a matter of prorating on mileage, and the accounts submitted by the Canadian National Railways are audited and examined by our auditors, who are officers of the finance department.


William Joseph Browne: Will you tell me where to find this item in the Canadian National accounts? I could not find it. I have searched for it, but could not locate it.


William Moore Benidickson: No, I told my friend that up until January of 1952 the item appeared in the regular accounts of income and outgo of the Canadian National Railways. Since then it is paid by the government.


William Joseph Browne: Will the hon.
member tell me why?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In line with the same policy we follow with regard to the Prince Edward Island ferry.


William Joseph Browne: Why do you
call it a deficit? It seems to me that by using that expression you are assuming that this is for the benefit of Newfoundland. I submit that the people who get the benefit are those who are selling the goods and those who are transporting it, the Canadian National Railways.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend suggest that there should be higher freight rates or fares on the ferry?


William Joseph Browne: No, I do not
suggest anything of the kind. I do believe that the operation between North Sydney and Port aux Basques must be profitable if there
[Mr. Benidickson.)

is any profitable portion of the Canadian National Railways, because the freight sheds are congested with goods. It takes from five to six weeks to get delivery of an article because of that fact. It is hard for me to see where the loss occurred on any freight received for that journey, at any rate. Is there any reason why you call it a deficit? Why could you not call it a subsidy to the Canadian National Railways instead of calling it a deficit?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
618. To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $23,799.
Howard Charles Green: Could the parliamentary assistant explain this vote? It seems to be a new one.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, by authority of section 60, subsection 2 of the Financial Administration Act, it is made possible to write off from the Department of Transport stores account a deletion from inventory for certain items. This particular item is made up of Moncton fire losses and stores $2,894; obsolete stores, $18,597 and adjustment of inventory, $2,308.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been such an item in the estimates before?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might answer that. My hon. friend will recall that the Financial Administration Act is fairly new. I think we passed it last year. In conjunction with the Financial Administration Act there was a Department of Transport Stores Act which provided for this revolving account. As I understand it this is really to authorize the making of an appropriate accounting entry in that revolving account to write off, for the purposes of our balance sheet, certain losses that have either occurred or obsolete stores. That is my understanding of the purpose.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be an annual vote?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think we would have an annual vote for this account every year, probably in the final supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-*
621.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities- further amount required, $10,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is the explanation of item 621?
68108-214J
Supply-Transport


William Moore Benidickson: This involves Canada's contribution to the maintenance of aviation trunk line facilities to the south Pacific. The trustee for the contributing countries is New Zealand, and when expenses were pooled the south Pacific air transport council submitted a charge of $10,000 under our percentage of cost. This is the item.


Howard Charles Green: That is additional to the vote we have passed?


William Moore Benidickson: It is additional to the $112,500 in the primary estimates. I may say that this brings the contribution up to date. It involves some retroactive accounting over a period of two or three years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air transport board-
622.	Subventions for air carriers, as detailed in the estimates, $125,009.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, will the minister explain this item? It seems to be a subvention for an air carrier, and this air carrier happens to be serving the west coast and Vancouver island so I have no objection to the vote. I believe this is a new departure. I should like to know whether there have been any other cases in which there have been subventions to an air transport company, and whether this signifies the adoption of a new policy by the government to aid aviation?


William Moore Benidickson: The possibility that something of this kind might be required in air transport, as it has been required in the past in connection with the maintenance of essential railway and steamship services, was anticipated, and authority for it is in the Aeronautics Act. My hon. friend will agree that in that part of the country with which he is so familiar there has been a considerable amount of recent activity, but at the same time unfortunately there has been a certain amount of curtailment of steamship services.
As a result of the elimination of certain steamship services people who are dependent upon either air or steamship for their necessary transportation would not, this winter, have had regular service. The air transport licensee could only operate during the winter months at a deficit. On the recommendation of the air transport board, and in accordance with the Aeronautics Act, this was declared to be a necessary service and consequently an agreement was made that the operator would receive for six winter months this amount of money so that the service would be maintained in the winter months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I might add, as the parliamentary assistant has stressed, it is rather an emergency situation. It was essentially a

Supply-Transport
temporary arrangement. When it was considered by the government, on the recommendation of the air transport board, it was felt that after getting over this difficult winter period the air line in question would probably be able to continue on a self-sustaining basis. This amount was to get it over that difficult hump and, as the parliamentary assistant has said, to provide essential transportation which would not be available in any other form during that period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might I, under this item, ask the parliamentary assistant if he can say whether there will be a statement of government policy at an early date in respect to the transporting of freight by air across Canada? I have in mind the fact that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines has made application for the right to operate a service that would compete with Trans-Canada Air Lines. In that connection I also have in mind the fact that a good many years ago, I believe in 1944, there was a statement of policy in this connection by the then prime minister, Mr. King, and confirmed by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). This statement of policy was to the effect that all main lines of air transport in Canada were to be operated by the government's chosen instrument, namely Trans-Canada Air Lines.
The statement of policy went further than that. It included statements as to what was to be done with respect to international flying as well. In my submission there have been some amendments of that policy-particularly international policy-across the years but there has never been any restatement of the policy itself. Can the parliamentary assistant say whether there will be a statement at an early date so we may know whether that statement which I believe was made in 1944 still holds with respect to main line flying in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: I will certainly draw the hon. member's remarks to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I think the hon. member will be the first to realize that on a matter of policy of that kind the minister would be the one who would be qualified to speak.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
623.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $5,334.
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to have some explanation of this item. In the note on page 22 I see that it is for steamship subventions for coastal service from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia to Boston. I should like

to know what the total payments have been for that service and why this supplementary amount of $5,334 is now asked for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That service, I am informed, is provided by Himmelman Supply Company of La Have, Nova Scotia. Last autumn the cabinet approved an increase in the subvention from $28,000 to $36,000, effective August 1, 1952. This additional $5,334 is supplementary to a vote of nearly $4 million, but it is required to provide for that purpose.


Percy Chapman Black: What special service does it concern?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yarmouth to Boston.


Percy Chapman Black: What traffic does it carry? What special service does it perform?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I have not that information readily available. It was approved in the main estimates and recommended, of course, by the maritime commission. But it is simply to provide an extra amount in addition to an amount already voted by parliament for that purpose.


Percy Chapman Black: As I understand the Minister of Finance, it is not a subsidy for the Yarmouth-Boston service. It is to a company or concern doing certain transporting of freight.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may be so. I am afraid I am not familiar with the details of these services. It is the case of an additional item where the main item has been approved. I could get that information for my hon. friend. However, I think he is right and that it is providing a freight service between Yarmouth and Boston.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the minister whether that service is being continued, whether it is going to apply to the ensuing year or whether the contract is terminated.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I would have to get information about that point and see in the main estimates, but I will see that that is done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Pensions and other benefits-
624.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act-further amount required, $1,600,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the parliamentary assistant give us some information on this item?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is very little to say on this. It is additional money required to fulfil the commitments of the department to pensioners, primarily the regular pensions in the service but also including those other war pensions paid under civilian acts but administered by the pension commission. It is an underestimate of what we would require this year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a straight underestimate. That is what it is.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are they veterans of world war II who have died since the end of the war?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I could not hear the question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice they are only for world war II. Are they veterans who have died since the end of the last war?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No. It is part of the general fund for the payment of war pensions, in Korea as well.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It supplements the main
vote of approximately $125 million.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous payments-
625.	Employers liability compensation-further amount required, $700,000.
Mr. Maclnnis:: Will someone explain the purpose of this item?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There was an arrangement
made in the period between world war I and world war II with each of the provincial governments designed to encourage the employment of disabled veterans in industry generally. That has continued over a period of years, and it has worked satisfactorily. It is now felt that the employment of pensioned veterans has reached a normal situation. Arrangements have been made with each of the provinces to retire this current plan by payment of $/00,000 to take care of those commitments already made. Formerly we assumed the responsibility for the difference between the pensioners' pension and the liability incurred in industrial accidents.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is now recognized that
disability pensioners are no greater risk-and I believe I am right in this-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -for workmen's compensation purposes than are ordinary employees. That has been determined in the light of experience. We are concluding our arrangements with the provinces, and now they will be treated just as ordinary employees.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Donald MacInnis: With this payment, there
will be no further payment on this score?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It does not include Korean
veterans?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. It is purely a civilian
matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
628.	Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners-further amount required, $325,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is the situation now with regard to post-discharge rehabilitation benefits for merchant seamen?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Those are mentioned because they are the only civilian exceptions to the rehabilitation program which qualify under this. Basically this money is needed to extend benefits to Korean veterans. But we mention these other groups because they are the only non-veteran groups which are affected to the extent that they are still a problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
LOANS, INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
629.	To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 35 of the National Housing Act by the amount paid out of the special account in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1951-52, $1,500,000.
Clarence Gillis: I notice the minister is not in
his seat.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can give the required
information.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to get this
information. There are in this country a large number of people who secured loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation back in 1945 or 1946. At prices prevailing at that time a home could be built for, say, $6,000 or $8,000. During the process of building those homes prices went up terrifically, a fact which left those people in the position of being from $2,000 to $3,000 short of the amount of money required to complete the home. That was owing to inflated prices. Many of them went in debt to the company that furnished the lumber. I myself have had several cases brought to my attention and I have had a great deal of correspondence with the Minister of Resources and Development asking if it was not possible to restore the supplementary loan privilege-
3370	HOUSE OF
Supply-Central Mortgage and Housing which was contained in the act and removed-or if there was not some way in which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could finance that outstanding account by way of a second loan through that organization. There were several cases where the lumber dealer was owed $2,000 or $3,000 and was issuing instructions to have a writ issued against the property holder, and threatening to take the property from him and all that kind of stuff.
The minister and I never got anywhere by way of negotiation. The matter just stood in abeyance. On several occasions he suggested that these people should; go to some other company, get another loan and finance it in that way. However, the people who were affected and for whom I was doing business with the minister were not in a position to do that. Getting another loan meant another $50 a month by way of payment; and they were ordinary people and could not afford it. A lot of people across the country are affected in that way.
I rose this afternoon because of an item that appears in the Journal of this afternoon. It is an account of remarks made to the Rotary Club in Hull by a gentleman named J. C. Paradis, manager of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In his remarks to the Rotary Club in Hull he said that a new policy had been inaugurated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which would enable homes to be financed directly between the people concerned and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that it was no longer necessary to farm the money out to the insurance companies.
Without going into a long harangue about the thing, can the minister tell us whether there has been a change in the policy of financing as suggested by this gentleman and whether it is possible now, in the type of case I have just described, to make a direct application to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and perhaps get a new mortgage, including the amount that is owed to the lumber dealer, and have it refinanced by Central Mortgage and Housing?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I was a little premature. I cannot give an answer as to that, the general policy of lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I did come prepared to deal with this particular item which relates to arrangements between the provinces for financing special developments jointly by the provinces, the federal government and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the Minister of Resources and Development, and perhaps he can bring


them up again when the main item comes up in the main estimates.
This particular item relates to section 35 of the National Housing Act, which has to do with the special account of $50 million, and this reimburses that account in the amount of $1,500,000 advanced under those arrangements that I have just mentioned with the provinces.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have a situation in my constituency along similar lines. I had it up with the department but have not got any place with it. I have a veteran who served five years in the army, and four of those years overseas. He is a carpenter. He started out to build his own house. He has the house just about to the point where he can live in it, and he has run short of money. He has been trying to get a loan from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but they have turned him down because they did not see the site first, did not see the starting of the thing and all the rest of it. This house is going to be worth between $10,000 and $12,000 when it is finished. It would take about $2,500 to finish it, and he has been more or less turned down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can only say, as I said to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that I shall bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport-
Air services-
632.	To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of financing the purchase of materials and supplies to be held in northwest communication system stores for use on both capital and maintenance works, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any one time not to exceed $125,000, of which $100,000 has already been provided under vote 559, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1952, $25,000.
Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation of this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is the revolving fund. The department recently submitted to treasury board that the $100,000 revolving fund provided for capital and maintenance works carried out by the northwest communication system is inadequate and should be increased to $125,000. That is the northwest communication system running up along the Alaska highway. Treasury board agreed to that, and of course I had to put the item in the supplementary estimates authorizing the increase from $100,000 to $125,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

633.	To provide for recoverable advances to enable extension of northwest cmmunications system facilities between Edmonton and the Yukon-Alaska border, $130,000.
Howard Charles Green: What	about this item?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That	is under somewhat
similar circumstances. On November 24, 1952 treasury board considered and approved the following project and directed that the Department of Transport be charged with the full cost of the facilities in the form of a refundable loan; that funds received as a provisioning charge or rental income be transmitted immediately to the Receiver General as a reduction of the loan, and that is what is known as the Beaver lodge project for the expansion of facilities of the northwest communications system, operated by the Canadian National Telegraphs on behalf of the Department of Transport. The expansion is required to meet certain requirements of the joint Canada-U.S defence network, specifically the new Beaverlodge establishment. It is considered that we will get revenues from a portion of that operation, and it was considered that it would be appropriate to make this as a refundable advance rather than a payment.


Howard Charles Green: This is a new line entirely,
is it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My understanding is that it is an extension of the existing facilities.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister able to say
from where it runs?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed from Beaverlodge to Edmonton.


Howard Charles Green: Where is Beaverlodge?


William Moore Benidickson: At lake Athabasca, at the radar development; and it involves some voice channels and teletypes. We are in a dominant communications position in that section, and therefore are asked to extend our services. But these particular facilities are going to be rented, and there will be a repayment over ten years by the people who want the service.


Howard Charles Green: I asked the question because
the description says: "between Edmonton and the Yukon-Alaska border" which apparently is incorrect.


William Moore Benidickson: I said lake Athabasca.


Howard Charles Green: I understand now. Where is
Beaverlodge?


Mr. MacDougall:: That is where Gunnar
Gold is located.


Howard Charles Green: Which is correct; is it the Yukon-Alaska border, or is it in Alberta?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid we would have to get the exact geographical location from my hon. friend. This description indicates to me the nature of the extension.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Veterans Affairs-
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
634.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; refunds to veterans (sections 9A and 19); and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $600,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could we have an explanation of this?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is an estimating problem again. The expenditures have run somewhat higher than the estimate. The main estimate was $18 million, and the supplementaries were $2,500,000. We need to have still another $600,000.


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

['If the hon. member objects to having third reading, then I shall gladly say that third reading shall be at the next sitting.']
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
['that the house go into committee of ways and means.']
Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1953, the sum of $77,680,383 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 292, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending 31st March, 1953.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, 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. CROWN LIABILITY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 105,
[Stage Direction]
Crown Liability
respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage-Mr. Garson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 8-"Provincial court" defined.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is a clause which gives jurisdiction to certain provincial courts, limited to what are known as district or county courts, where the maximum jurisdiction is $1,000.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is not limited to county courts.


Howard Charles Green: Let us, for example, take the province of British Columbia. I understand that in that province the jurisdiction is given only to the county courts, where the limitation is $1,000.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is limited as to amount. If the jurisdiction of the county court is not high enough, then it can be taken to the superior court of the province.


Howard Charles Green: But the limit is $1,000, is it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Why is it not made possible for courts of original jurisdiction in each province to deal with these matters? For instance, in British Columbia why should not the supreme court in that province be allowed to deal with the claims?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, for many years the exchequer court has been traditionally the court in which actions between the subject and the crown have been carried on. By reason of the fact that actions from all provinces of Canada between the subject and the crown are carried on in the exchequer court, a uniform jurisprudence has been built up in all of these cases. We think it is desirable that that practice should be continued.
However, it did seem to us desirable that in respect of smaller negligence claims, and the like, where the amounts involved did not exceed $1,000, and where in most provinces it would be possible to have such cases tried in the county or district courts, right in the same community, the subject should be permitted to bring his action in his own county court in his own local district. I am referring to a local district such as the Okanagan or the Kootenay districts of British Columbia.
Therefore we have made this provision. We do believe, however, that where larger amounts are involved and where, as a rule, the more difficult points of law are involved, it is desirable to have actions of that kind brought in the exchequer court, where they will be adjudicated by the same panel of judges in all the provinces of Canada. Since, as my hon. friend knows, the procedure in that court has been considerably simplified

in the last few years and the exchequer court sits in different parts of Canada, the alleged inconvenience of suing in the exchequer court is not as great as at first blush it might appear.
We think that in a statute which is opening up a wide, new field of jurisdiction, as regards causes of action, this is at least the appropriate provision to make.


Howard Charles Green: There is the possibility that the jurisdiction would be extended to the higher courts?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Only, I think, if it appeared that there was a need. We are inclined to the view that, with this provision taking care of all the smaller cases in the county courts, there is no particular hardship in suing in the exchequer court, which sits periodically in the different parts of Canada and in which court, I believe, procedure is much simpler than in the average provincial superior court. We think this will work. If it does not work, then I believe we have shown by our conduct in relation to this act that we are quite open-minded and always willing to try to accommodate the public need.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Rules of court.
Mr. Robichaud:: Before we proceed to part III may I suggest to the minister that in my submission it would be advisable to have in part II a section providing for discovery and inspection of documents, and for examination for discovery.
I have checked the Ontario statutes, where I find an act respecting proceedings against the crown. In that act section 10 makes provision that the crown may be required to make possible discovery of documents, and to produce documents for inspection. Although couched in different language, there is a similar section in the crown proceedings act of the United Kingdom where, in section 28, provision is also made for examination for discovery.
I suggest it would be very helpful if there were added to the bill a section making provision for the inspection of documents and examination for discovery. May I also suggest that there should be provision in the bill for examination of parties outside the jurisdiction, a point which I consider of some importance. I make my remarks brief, so that we may not be delayed in proceeding to part III.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the experience under the Exchequer Court Act over a period of years had demonstrated that there was great need for discovery in that court, such as my hon.

friend is recommending, then perhaps it might be considered. However, I think my hon. friend will agree that it would be more appropriate to amend the Exchequer Court Act, because if discovery is necessary it should be provided not only for actions of tort covered by the present bill but for all actions taken against the crown in that court. Therefore I think it might be better for us to consider the suggestion which my hon. friend has made in connection with the Exchequer Court Act rather than this bill.


Mr. Carroll:: I believe there is provision in all the provinces for discovery under the Exchequer Court Act.


Albany M. Robichaud: I was not thinking of discovery in the exchequer court, because that is provided for already by the general orders and rules of procedure of that court; and I would refer to rules 129, 130 and 131.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I misunderstood my hon.
friend. I thought he was talking about discovery of documents, not examination for discovery. If my hon. friend's point is that he wishes changes made by this legislation in the rules of procedure of the provincial courts, then I think it would be preferable for us not to change any of the rules of procedure of the provincial courts even if we have the power to do so. I think it would be wise to see how we get along with this bill under the existing rules of procedure in the provincial courts. For my own part, if it was thought desirable to change the rules in the provincial courts I think it would be preferable to communicate with the attorneys general of the provinces to see if they were prepared to change the rules in relation to actions brought under this legislation.


Albany M. Robichaud: As provision for examination for discovery exists in all provinces there is no need to change the rules of procedure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If it exists in the exchequer court and in all provinces, then why is my hon. friend urging that it should be provided for here?


Albany M. Robichaud: I feel it would clarify this bill if it were included. We are passing a new statute to apply to all provinces and we would not be infringing upon provincial rights by making discovery a part of this statute.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I must differ with my hon. friend. We are dealing with substantive matters in this statute. I think my hon. friend will agree that a provision for examination for discovery is procedural in character. It seems to me that it would be wiser, particularly if he is right when he
Crown Liability
says there is provision already for examination for discovery in the exchequer court and also in the provincial courts, to let these provisions apply and have this statute deal with substantive law, which is what in the main it purports to do.


Albany M. Robichaud: There may be some doubt as to whether discovery would apply to proceedings under this statute.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 14 reads:
Except as otherwise provided by this act or the regulations, the rules of practice and procedure of the court in which proceedings under this part are taken apply in those proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 15 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Service on deputy attorney general.
Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: More discovery.


Albany M. Robichaud: It is not more discovery, but we may discover something else. This section reads:
The governor in council may make regulations (a) prescribing rules of practice and procedure in respect of proceedings taken in provincial courts under part II.
I think this fits in with the remarks just made by the Minister of Justice when he said we should not pass laws dealing with procedural matters. I suppose by that he means that he would not want to invade what is recognized as exclusive provincial jurisdiction; yet power is being sought in this very section to prescribe rules of practice and procedure. I have studied the matter very carefully, and I am dubious whether this parliament has the right to prescribe rules of practice and procedure in respect to proceedings taken in provincial courts.
I would appreciate if the minister would point to any authority giving us the right to do that. I submit with due respect that this provision would be ultra vires of the dominion parliament. As a matter of fact there have been cases decided by the privy council with reference to this matter in which procedure has been declared to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I would refer the minister to the case of Attorney General of Quebec v. Reed, reported in 10 Appeal Cases, 141. In that case the privy council was quite clear on the point. I should like to quote from the judgment at page 144 as follows:
One of the things which are to be within the powers of the provincial legislatures-within their exclusive powers-is the administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, main-

Crown Liability
tenance, and organization of provincial courts, and including the procedure in civil matters in the courts.
I think that is applicable to the present situation. There seems to be no doubt that questions of procedure and practice in civil matters in provincial courts are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and therefore we have no right to pass statutes which invade those exclusive provincial rights. I should like to quote now from Lefroy's "Legislative power in Canada" at page 293, where reference is made to the judgment in McKilligan v. Machar, wherein Killam, J. said:
The provincial legislature has the authority to regulate the administration of justice in the province, including procedure in civil matters in the courts.
I do not take issue with the power of this parliament to pass this legislation, but I have been unable to find any other statute of a similar nature where parliament went as far as it undoubtedly is the intention to go under section 22, namely to prescribe rules of practice and procedure in respect of proceedings taken in provincial courts, including provisions with respect to fees and costs.
In the privy council case which I cited this very question was dealt with inter alia. The Minister of Justice may have some authority, a later decision, to which he can point where this privy council case was overruled. If so I shall be delighted to have the authority on which his law officers are now proceeding; but so far as I have been able to find out I am very dubious whether we have the power to pass such regulations as are provided by section 22. It may be that the minister has some authority. It may be that he has cases. It may be that he will say that the section should go through, but I am sure it will mean an appeal if this parliament attempts to pass regulations to govern the rules of practice and procedure in provincial courts.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought I understood my hon. friend to suggest a few moments ago that we should prescribe rules of practice with regard to the discovery of documents and the like in provincial courts. But if his actual position is that he is opposing any enactment of this sort in the present bill, I would point out to him, as authorities, that the same thing has been done in the Bankruptcy Act, the Companies Act, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Canadian Citizenship Act and the Canada Elections Act, to name only five. I apprehend that as long as the provision which is included in the federal statutes is properly ancillary to the carrying out of the pith and substance of [Mr. Robichaud.j
the act which itself falls within federal jurisdiction, it is intra vires under the Canadian constitution.


Howard Charles Green: Is the position not a little different here? The minister's basic plan is to allow these cases to be tried in the county courts in the same way any other case might be tried in those courts. Why not let the provincial rules applicable to those courts apply? The minister has referred to the Canada Elections Act, the Canadian Citizenship Act and two or three others, but those deal with subjects that do not come under provincial courts in any other way than by virtue of the federal statute. Here we have an entirely different situation in that the minister is opening the door to lawsuits in the provincial county courts. Why not let them be lawsuits of exactly the same type and governed by the same rules as the lawsuits which are brought in those courts at the present time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am in complete agreement with my hon. friend. I indicated a few moments ago that as long as the provincial rules of procedure are adequate there would be no disposition upon our part to change them. But it may be, having regard to the rather wide list of new causes of action which are provided for in the present statute, that in certain provincial procedural statutes there will be a gap that requires to be filled. In that event, and only in that event, would we want to invoke this clause which my hon. friend will see, if he will read it, says that the governor in council "may" make regulations. We do not have to make them, and I can assure him so far as I am concerned as Minister of Justice that we will not make any at all unless it is necessary.
Speaking only for myself, my disposition would be that if we were going to make any such regulations we would certainly write to the provincial attorney general and confer with him as to the necessity. Perhaps it would be possible for him to change his own rules to accommodate the point we had in mind. In other words, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has suggested we would very much prefer, for obvious reasons, that in any proceedings taken in provincial courts under this present statute we should abide by the rules of those provincial courts.


Howard Charles Green: Why not delete clause (a) and depend on clause (e) to meet that situation? It is wide enough to cover anything that is required. Then you get away from the very broad wording of clause (a) which in effect says that the governor in council can step in and prescribe rules for the county courts in

British Columbia, Ontario or anywhere else. I think that is an unnecessarily wide provision.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the light of the explanation I have just given surely there is no harm, when we are bringing in a wide list of new causes of action against the crown that have not been used before and to which the provincial rules may not be closely applicable, in taking this power which we may not and which I hope we shall not exercise. It is there if we require it. If we do not require it we certainly will not use it. I do not see how it can possibly do any harm.


Howard Charles Green: The statute does not set up any new causes of action. All it does is to make the crown subject to certain causes of action that have been in existence for a long time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course it all depends upon how one looks at it, but I do suggest to my hon. friend that there are a number of sets of facts which arise in Canada in which the crown, upon the passage of the bill, would be involved as defendant. In each of these cases there is no cause of action now. Hence, with all deference, I would suggest that we are creating causes of action.


Howard Charles Green: But they are similar to causes of action against private individuals.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, but never against the crown until the present time.


Albany M. Robichaud: The minister has sought to place me in a dilemma by making reference to my previous remarks concerning the advisability of embodying in the statute provisions for the discovery and inspection of documents. But may I say to the minister that when 1 made my first suggestion before we got through with part II I did so with the intention of finding out exactly what the minister's position was in regard to my suggestion. I submit now that by passing the regulations provided for in section 22 the minister will, in my humble submission, certainly be invading the exclusive rights of the provinces to prescribe rules and regulations as far as practice, procedure and other matters are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now revert to section 4 which was allowed to stand. Hon. members will recall that subsection 4 of clause 4 was allowed to stand for the purpose of possibly moving an amendment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yesterday when this clause was before the committee the hon. member
Crown Liability
for Eglinton referred, as hon. members will recall, to the provisions of what we take to be the Ontario municipal act calling for the giving of notice in cases of claims against municipalities. He suggested, if I understood him correctly, that the provision which was applicable in the province of Ontario might be made applicable here rather than the wording which we have employed. We have examined the provision in question. I have no hesitation, Mr. Chairman, in accepting it.
I might suggest that we add a new subclause to clause 4 of this bill in the terms of the Ontario section, and then have it passed. Might I read the Ontario section:
In the case of the death of the person injured, failure to give notice shall not be a bar to the action and except where the injury was caused by snow or ice upon a sidewalk, failure to give or insufficiency of the notice shall not be a bar to the action, if the court or judge before whom the action is tried is of the opinion that the corporation in its defence was not prejudiced by the want or insufficiency of the notice, and that to bar the action would be an injustice, notwithstanding that reasonable excuse for the want or insufficiency of the notice is not established.
In other words the claimant, even although he cannot establish a reasonable excuse for not having given the notice, will nevertheless have a claim if the court or judge before whom the action is tried is of the opinion that the corporation, in its defence-in our case it would be the federal crown-was not prejudiced by the want or insufficiency of the notice, and that to bar the action would be an injustice. Might I suggest that we have that put into the form of a new subclause to clause 4 of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the minister that he delete that exception which refers to snow or ice. I doubt very much whether that provision is in the Ontario statute. Of course I do not know whether or not it is, but it does seem to be an unnecessary restriction. Why not leave it to the judge in any case to decide whether or not relief should be given against the failure to give notice within seven days?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend will agree that if the judge is going to decide something, you have to give him some criteria upon which to base his decision. The criterion which is stated here is that the crown has not been prejudiced in its defence by the failure to give that notice within the prescribed period. What we are doing here is really meeting my hon. friend's view that he has just expressed. It is hardly fair to the judge to leave it completely in his discretion. He has to have some standard upon which he can judge whether or not it is proper or not to grant the relief.

Crown Liability


Howard Charles Green: Why not leave it to the judge instead of putting in the exception for snow or ice? As I pointed out to the minister last evening, I had a person come in to see me whose wife had been injured because of the ice on the sidewalk in front of the immigration office at the border below Vancouver. The wife was quite seriously hurt, and the husband was very worried about her. She was taken to hospital and there was great concern about her. If I remember correctly this man did not come to the office until one week had elapsed, so that under this provision the judge would have no power to exempt him from the provision requiring the seven days' notice because the wording refers to snow and ice. I think the matter should be left to the discretion of the judge. Surely we can trust our judiciary that far, without saying that when the accident was caused by snow or ice they have no right to give further time. I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that that is an unnecessary restriction.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This section was before the committee yesterday, and the hon. member for Eglinton took exception to the section upon the ground that there was no saving subsection such as the one I have just quoted which would protect the claimant in cases such as the one to which my hon. friend has just referred. The hon. member for Eglinton referred to this provision in the Ontario statute. I understood him to say that he regarded that as something which should be in this bill. As I have said, in an endeavour to meet the views of the opposition in a reasonable way, we have examined the Ontario section and we are offering to adopt it.
Now the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra says he wants to improve on the Ontario section to some extent. I wonder if we might not leave the matter as it is. If any difficulty develops under it, then we could consider amending it again. From the fact that this provision has been in the Ontario act I would assume that it must have been found to be fairly satisfactory or there would have been public opinion in favour of changing it.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Eglinton did not disagree with me last night at all. We were both asking that the exception of an accident arising from snow or ice be deleted. No suggestion was made by the hon. member for Eglinton that he agreed there might be such an exception. I would suggest that we give the trial judge the right to decide whether or not notice has been given within a reasonable time, rather than putting in that restriction against the type of claim 
arising from snow or ice. I have given the minister one example which I have had in my own practice where it would be absolutely unfair to deny these people the right to claim because they did not file within the seven days. All I am asking is that the minister take out the words excepting snow and ice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is well aware of the reason for their inclusion in the Ontario statute or in similar statutes of that nature. Where the damage arises from a condition of snow or ice, unless the defendant is acquainted with the condition which is alleged to have caused the injury the defendant has no opportunity at all of examining what is essentially an ephemeral condition. It is gone in a short time. Then the defendant is entirely at the mercy of the plaintiff as to what the condition was. The condition has passed away, and the defendant is handicapped in making his defence.
I am sure the provision in the Ontario statute was put there not because of any unfairness on the part of the Ontario legislature or the Ontario municipalities, but because the need for it in cases of that kind was recognized. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the hon. member for Eglinton, like himself, was not at all enthusiastic over this provision about snow and ice. As I understood it, though, he did not have this section with him. He was advocating that we consider it. We have looked it up, and we are quite prepared to adopt it to meet the suggestion he made.


Howard Charles Green: You see, the case I have mentioned could have been decided by a judge because in that case an immigration officer was right there and knew about the accident within a minute after it happened. The crown would not have been prejudiced in any way if it had not had notice within seven days. Now, this case would come before a judge, and the judge would say, "Well, the crown has not suffered because notice was not given within the seven days." He would allow the suit to continue. If the minister puts in this restriction, this suit is automatically wiped out because it arises out of snow and ice. I suggest that is going too far.
I would ask the minister to take out those words and leave it to the trial judge to decide in every case.


Albany M. Robichaud: May I ask the minister the length of notice required under the Ontario municipal act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under the Ontario municipal act it is seven days.


Albany M. Robichaud: The hon. member for Eglinton after having proposed this saving clause

also said this, and I am quoting from page 3335 of Hansard:
I would urge on the minister that even with such a saving provision, a period of seven days is still too short.
If the only obsession in the minister's mind now is the possibility of a case arising from slippery conditions due to snow or ice, my submission would be just the contrary. By this I mean that seven days is too long. You should make it seven hours if that is the only thing in the way. I am certainly in accord with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to eliminate this notice in the case of snow and ice, because in my province if it is seven days or even seven months, it is all right; but in some places, for slippery conditions, seven days is far too long. Why not eliminate the snow and ice condition entirely in the proposed amending subsection?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Surely the hon. member for Gloucester has exploded the unreasonableness of the exception for snow and ice because, as he says, if you have conditions of snow and ice, seven days is far too long, exactly as he says. I think he shows the unreasonableness of the exception.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The unreasonableness of asking to accept what is in the Ontario legislation?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have a high opinion of Ontario, but they are not always perfect.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are too many sea lawyers around here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With great deference to my hon. friends on the opposite side who have just spoken, I suggest that in matters of this kind great consideration should be given to the experience of municipal administrators over a period of years. These provisions that appear in municipal statutes do not get there because some person has had an abstract idea. They get there because they are based upon the experience of the municipalities over the years.
What my hon. friends-I think somewhat unreasonably-are asking is that in a statute which is creating a wide list of new causes of action against the crown we should, without any experience upon which to base our provision in the statutes, adopt a wording which is much more onerous upon the crown than that which is provided by the Ontario legislature for the municipalities of that province. I think where we are making the considerable concessions that are being made in this statute, it is surely reasonable that
Crown Liability
we should adopt in this section the same sort of provision which has prevailed in the Ontario statutes for some years and apparently has been found to be consonant with public opinion generally.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I might ask for the amendment so that it can be put. Mr. Fournier (Hull) moves:
That subsection 5 of clause 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(5) In the case of the death of the person injured, failure to give the notice required by subsection (4) is not a bar to the proceedings, and, except where the injury was caused by snow or ice, failure to give or insufficiency of the notice is not a bar to the proceedings if the court or judge before whom the proceedings are taken is of opinion that the crown in its defence was not prejudiced by the want or insufficiency of the notice and that to bar the proceedings would be an injustice, notwithstanding that reasonable excuse for the want or insufficiency of the notice is not established.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Albany M. Robichaud: I quite agree with the minister that this is a new act, but I cannot understand why they should go to the Ontario municipal act to find the terminology for the proposed saving clause. After all, if they want some precedent for terminology or phraseology in this act or the provisions thereof, they have something right in Ontario, in chapter 78, which is an act respecting proceedings against the crown which is well drawn, in my submission. There is no similar provision in the Ontario act, which was only adopted last year, making an exception for snow or ice or slippery conditions. Neither is there a similar provision in the English act. I do not know why we should look to the Ontario municipal act to put this saving clause in section 4 of our act.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Since the amendment is an addition to subsection 4, subsection 4 therefore should be carried. Shall subsection 4 carry?
Subsection 4 agreed to.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Just one question. In the last sentence of the explanatory note, I find this language:
It is felt that the crown should not be prejudiced by claims after an opportunity for investigating is gone.
I have a question arising out of that section. Will the minister say what month in the year he would regard as being "before the snow flies"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that is a question which answers itself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Res ipsa loquitur.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall section 4 carry?
3378	HOUSE OF
North Pacific Fishery


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

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure providing for the approval and confirmation of the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, signed by Canada, the United States and Japan, in Tokyo, on the 9th of May, 1952, and for carrying out Canada's obligations under the convention.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean was drafted at a tripartite fisheries convention held in Tokyo in the fall of 1951. This conference was attended by delegations representing the governments of Canada, Japan and the United States.
The Canadian delegation was made up of the recent minister of fisheries, Hon. Mr. Mayhew, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite); the deputy minister of fisheries, Mr. Bates; the legal adviser of the Department of Fisheries, Mr. Ozere; a representative from the external affairs department, Mr. Menzies; John L. Hart, director of the Pacific biological station; and John M. Buchanan, representing the fishing industry of British Columbia. Japan was given an ad hoc sovereignty by the supreme command of the allied forces for the purposes of negotiating the convention. Upon the coming into force of the Japanese peace treaty, the convention was signed on behalf of the three governments on May 9, 1952.
The convention is made in respect of fishing in the high seas of the North Pacific ocean. Territorial waters are excepted and claims to territorial waters unaffected.
The principal provisions of the convention relate to agreement on the part of each of the three contracting parties to abstain from fishing in the high seas outside the territorial waters for any stocks of fish which are (a) under scientific management, (b) legal regulation, and (c) fully exploited by one or two of the contracting parties. Under these provisions Japan immediately agreed to abstain from fishing for salmon, halibut and herring on
[The Chairman.]

this side of the Pacific ocean. These three species constitute the backbone of the fishing industry in British Columbia. We have agreed to abstain from fishing for red salmon in certain areas of the Bering sea, where our fishermen have never conducted any fishing operations, and where the United States have developed the salmon fishery without our participation.
By way of exception to these general principles, under which each of the parties agreed to abstain from exploiting the resources conserved and developed by one or two of the other parties, the treaty recognizes that, because of intermingling of fish and fishing operations, and because of joint conservation programs, neither Canada nor the United States would be asked to abstain from the exploitation of the fishery resources on this side of the Pacific from the gulf of Alaska southward. This exception is of particular interest to Canada, since our fishermen have not historically established fishing operations along the greatest part of the coast of the United States, including Alaska; whereas United States' fishermen have been fishing in the high seas off our territorial waters in many areas along the coast of British Columbia, and therefore could not be asked to abstain because of this historic exploitation.
Subject to these exceptions, any other stock of fish that in the future meets with the three conditions of full exploitation, scientific management and legal regulation may be included in the annex of the treaty, and the party or parties which have not participated in this exploitation may be asked to abstain from future exploitation.
The treaty provides for the establishment of a commission composed of representatives of the three countries, whose functions will include determination of whether any stock of fish qualifies for abstention under the principles of the convention. The commission would also decide whether any joint conservation measures are required in respect of any stock of fish exploited by two or all of the contracting parties. In case only two countries are interested in a certain fishery, the representatives of the two countries concerned would alone make the necessary recommendations; otherwise the recommendations of the commission are to be unanimous.
The commission has no regulatory powers, but only the power of making recommendations which can only become effective if agreed to by the governments of the three countries. Each government is to pay the expenses incurred by its national section. Joint expenses are to be paid in the form and proportion recommended by the commission

and approved by the three governments. Search and arrest of fishing vessels on the high seas, operating contrary to the provisions of the convention, are agreed to. Such vessels when seized are to be turned over to the country to which they belong for trial and punishment. This procedure is in line with the procedure now provided for in our two treaties with the United States on salmon and halibut.
The convention will enter into force on the day of exchange of ratification and will remain in force for ten years, and thereafter one year from the day on which any party gives notice of termination. The treaty has already been ratified by the government of the United States and approved by the diet of Japan, and it is thought desirable that it should be ratified by the government of Canada as soon as possible.
By a protocol to the convention the commission shall, as soon as possible after its establishment, investigate the waters of the convention area to determine if there are areas in which salmon of United States, Canadian and Asiatic origin intermingle, and recommend suitable lines of demarcation in place of the provisional line now agreed upon.
The convention was referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries for study. The committee on June 10, 1952 unanimously recommended that the House of Commons approve the convention. Implementing legislation will be required to carry out Canada's obligation under the convention. This resolution envisages such implementing legislation.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary assistant has said, this convention was examined carefully in the standing committee on marine and fisheries a year ago. It is therefore not the intention to have a protracted debate at the resolution stage here. But in view of a certain amount of misunderstanding which existed on the west coast, and a good deal of controversy which took place, I would appreciate the opportunity of making a few remarks on this subject.
It was considered by many people that it would have been preferable to have included this convention in the general peace treaty, but we learned in the committee that that was not considered either practicable or desirable when the Japanese peace treaty was being drawn up at San Francisco, and the committee accepted the explanations which were then given. As a result of the impossibility of the inclusion of special fishery clauses in the general peace treaty, this tripartite treaty or convention was drawn up.
North Pacific Fishery
I understand that the convention is aimed in general terms at the conservation of fisheries resources in a very large area of the Pacific ocean, with special treatment for a limited period of time, namely eleven years and one day, or longer, to fisheries which are being fully exploited and are already subject to conservation methods, as has just now been described by the parliamentary assistant.
Japan is excluded, in certain sections of the high seas off the coast of the United States territory of Alaska and British Columbia, from fishing salmon, herring and halibut for the period described. Canada and Japan have agreed to abstain from fishing salmon which originates in the waters of the rivers of Alaska flowing into the Bering sea.
One unique point regarding the fisheries on the west coast is that, historically, Canada and the United States have been the only powers which have fished in the high seas off the west coast of Canada. I do not think there is any recorded incident in which a foreign fishing vessel, other than those of the United States, has fished off the west coast of Canada. Of course, in the past Japanese fishing vessels have been off the Alaska coast, in the Bering sea. But fear exists among many people in the industry that this immunity may not last forever and that, owing to the rapid development in fishing vessels, including the increase in their size, it may be that foreign fishing fleets will come to the high seas off the coast of British Columbia in the not too distant future.
It is known that at the present time Japan has trawlers to a gross tonnage of 664 tons, and that they have modern steel clippers that they use in their fishing industry. But Japan is not the only country developing fishing fleets ranging over the ocean for thousands of miles, and so there is the fear that not only may Japanese fishing fleets come off our coasts, but also the fishing fleets of other nations who border on the Pacific ocean.
For many years we have spent a great deal of money and effort in the conservation of our fish. I say "our" fish because I mean our Canadian fish, our British Columbia fish, the fish born and bred hundreds of miles up the rivers of my province. And then the salmon, having spawned, work down the rivers and pass out through our territorial waters into the high seas. In the majority of cases they have to pass through waters surrounded by Canadian territory for some considerable distance before they actually get into the ocean. Naturally I refer to such passages as the strait of Juan de Fuca and Hecate strait between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia.

North Pacific Fishery
I think it is appropriate at the moment to call attention to the importance of the fishing industry to the Japanese nation, as it is indicative of her interest in that industry not only at the present time hut also in years to come. In pre-war days-and I am referring to the time before world war II-the Japanese fleet was catching from 3 to 5 million tons of fish each year, and that country was exporting about a million tons. During the war, of course, her fishing activities were very much restricted, and were confined to fishing close to the islands of Japan. Her export trade was completely cut off.
After the war, beginning in 1951, although still under certain restrictions placed upon her by the occupying powers Japan did carry out extensive fishing operations. She was encouraged to do so. Her total catch that year was 3,500,000 tons. In 1952 she increased that catch by at least 20 per cent. I have here a report from World Fishing, a trade magazine of the United Kingdom dealing with fishing, which has this to say about Japanese endeavours at the present time:
Japan is apparently losing little time in making use ol her new fishing freedom. Plans reported to be under consideration for 1953 include five or six salmon expeditions involving 200 catchers, further whaling operations, a crab expedition, a trawling venture (chiefly for cod) employing five boats and1 a fish carrier, and a fish-meal factory ship expedition with 25 catchers.
Japan is already looking far afield for possible extensions to her fishery activities.
It is the fear of the extension of those fishing activities by Japan and by other countries that looms over the fishermen of British Columbia. They have expressed considerable disappointment that an opportunity was not taken, when the convention was prepared, of defining in article I more clearly what our territorial waters are, because this treaty deals with the high seas and of course the high seas come right up to where our territorial waters may be.
In Scott's "Law and Customs of the Seas", which is a textbook of the Royal Canadian Navy, navigable waters of the world are divided into internal waters, territorial waters and the high seas. This classification begins on the landward side and requires of course two lines, one demarking the division between internal and territorial waters, and the other defining the line between territorial waters and the high seas. Quite obviously the internal waters of a state comprise all those waters, salt or fresh, which lie on the landward side of the line dividing the internal waters from the territorial waters. This will include all rivers, fresh lakes, harbours and the like.
A well-known authority, Mr. V. K. Johnston, who wrote a quite complete article in the British Year Book of International Law a few years ago, sets out the claims of Canada to certain waters, particularly Hudson bay. The waters of Hudson bay are controlled by Canada, and Canada has laid claim for many centuries to those waters as being internal waters of Canada. That claim has been established in the statutes of Canada. Other countries have done the same. Japan had claimed the Inland sea as her own internal waters. Russia has claimed the White sea. The United States has claimed Chesapeake bay. Those are just some examples of the claims that have been made to internal waters.
Many plans have been suggested for the drawing of a base line to indicate the territorial waters. As far as Hudson bay is concerned, that bay is 1,000 miles long by about 600 miles wide. This huge expanse of water is joined to the Atlantic ocean by Hudson strait, another stretch of water some 500 miles long and 46 miles wide. In 1906 the government of Canada placed a measure upon the statute books claiming the waters of Hudson bay to be territorial waters of Canada.
I cite that as an instance of what Canada has done in the past in the way of claiming a wide stretch of salt water which is connected to the Atlantic ocean. On the west coast we have not had the continued incidents of foreign countries fishing off our coast, but we feel that the time has come when steps should be taken to declare that the waters between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland, through which fish born in the waters of British Columbia must pass to get to the Pacific ocean, should be declared to be territorial or internal waters.
We believe that that can be done now, and we regret that it was not included in this convention. There should have been a clear definition claiming for all time, not just for ten or eleven years, that Hecate strait constituted territorial waters of Canada and that Japan should be prohibited for all time from fishing for salmon, herring, halibut or any other fish in those Canadian waters.
We recognize the historic right of the United States to fish there. For years United States fishermen have been fishing in these waters and have observed and will continue to observe the conservation regulations which we have laid down for the protection of our fish. But that does not necessarily apply to Japan or other countries bordering on the Pacific ocean. We feel that this convention should have afforded an opportunity

to establish those waters as Canadian territorial waters. Even if that were not done, we feel that for all time there should have been a claim made by Canada to preserve the salmon, halibut, herring and other fish that inhabit those waters.
It is not unusual for countries to claim fishing preserves or rights over certain waters of the high seas outside of their own territorial waters. For instance, the United Kingdom has laid claim to the oyster beds in St. George's channel, which are more than 20 miles from the coast. The United Kingdom claims that she has certain fishing rights there and she exercises certain regulations over the breeding and harvesting of those oysters. In the same way sponge fisheries off the Tunisian coast are specially protected although they are well outside territorial waters. Similarly, fishing and conservation regulations have been made by Mexico and some of the South American republics.
I am not going into the question of how a base line should be drawn, but we do have the example of Norway. That nation recently made the decision to draw a base line from point to point, some points being 40 miles distant. These fixed points were on headlands, small islands and rocks stretching up the whole length of the west coast of Norway. We feel it is high time that steps were taken to declare Hecate strait as Canadian waters, and to say that we have the right to conserve our fish in those waters.
I understand that a committee has been set up and is going into the whole problem, and also that this matter will be referred to a committee of the United Nations which is discussing the question of territorial waters. I repeat that we regret that opportunity was not taken when this convention was drawn to define clearly where our territorial waters were on the west coast and establish once and for all our right to the fish which breed in Canadian waters and pass through Hecate strait and other waters surrounded either by the shores of the mainland of Canada or islands off the west coast.
If Canada can lay claim to the vast area of Hudson bay, surely she has the right to claim Hecate strait which is also surrounded by Canadian territory. Hecate strait is an insignificant piece of water when its size is compared with Hudson bay and Hudson strait. The strait is not more than 30 or 40 miles wide at the widest point between the mainland and the Queen Charlotte islands.
Those are the objections we have to this convention. We do not feel that we can go so far as to object to its ratification, but we do urge that the committee which has been set up to deal with territorial waters should
Post Office Act
proceed with the utmost dispatch and try to reach an agreement with the other countries concerned so that now, before it is too late, before foreign fishing fleets come off our shores, all nations will know that Canada claims that sheet of water.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Sinclair) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 293, to implement the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


POST OFFICE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 107, to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville)-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-P.M.G. may contract where amount $1,000 or less.
Louis-René Beaudoin: I might point out that this bill was carefully considered by a special committee appointed to consider it, and was reported to the house without amendment.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I have a copy of the bill?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am informed that if the hon. member looks in his file of bills he will probably find Bill No. 107, to amend the Post Office Act. In any event I am asking the officers of the house to have additional copies of the bill distributed.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask a question on clause 1. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee. I noticed in the committee's reports that some effort was made to have the rural mail couriers appear before the committee. It did not seem to me that a very courageous attempt was made to get them, but it appeared that the committee had asked one of the regional presidents, Mr. Webster of Acton, to come. I know that he has not been very well, and I have no doubt that is the reason he did not appear. Was any real effort made to get these people before the committee?


Mr. Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: As a matter of fact Mr. Webster was contacted by telephone. First he said he would try to come, but he also said that he was sick. When he was called the day after he said he could not come, that he was sick and that he had no substitute. He said he would send a telegram. We had received from Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Post Office Act
Webster, as the representative of the association, an itemized statement of his views as to what he considered should be included in the bill, and the bill met almost exactly what he had requested. Two letters from Mr. Webster were filed in the committee. My hon. friend may want to know the details, and I might read one of those letters. It reads as follows:
On behalf of the rural mail couriers of Canada may I express our thankfulness for introducing a bill mentioned in the press of today, that will give you the authority to again increase the wages of deserving couriers without them having to throw up their contract and re-tender. We trust that this will in no way interfere with the committee under discussion to study rural mail for a Canada-wide survey that satisfied couriers can only exist when they receive some equality of payment according to the amount of work involved.
For some time now statistical price records have changed very little and yet at the same time labour is asking and receiving substantial increases dating well into the future. This too is in the minds of many couriers, especially among the lower contracts. For example-a four to five hour day, furnishing all equipment and supplying gas, etc., for $3. This is not an isolated instance either. Again we say "thank you'' as we look forward for something better for our rural mail couriers.
That letter is signed by S. H. Webster, secretary of the rural mail couriers' association.


Gordon Graydon: That is in the committee's proceedings?


Charles Delmar Coyle: It was filed in the committee. Then there is another short letter. I do not like to impose unnecessary repetition on the committee, but I may tell my hon. friend that we had in mind that they should be consulted and they were invited to come down. From what I have read in their letters, and from the conversation Mr. Webster had with the chairman of the committee, I presume that he is quite satisfied with what has been done.


Percy Chapman Black: I am in a similar position to the hon. member for Peel. I was not a member of the committee, and I have not been able to familiarize myself with its deliberations. I have had representations from quite a number of couriers in my constituency and in Nova Scotia generally. I am interested in the letter the minister has just read. I understand that Mr. Webster is dominion president of the couriers' association?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Secretary.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to know if any representatives of the couriers of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces generally appeared before the committee. I

know that as an organization and as individuals they have been very much concerned about the deliberations and recommendations of the committee. Was there direct representation from the maritime provinces or from Nova Scotia; and did the department, having in mind the long distance they would have to come and the time they would be here, make any proposal to them to defray their expenses so they might give evidence in this matter that affects their interests?


Charles Delmar Coyle: I do not know of any representations having been made by the people mentioned by my hon. friend. I may tell him that Mr. Webster said, in a telegram which was also filed in the committee, that he was representing all the couriers of Canada, and I presume that their problems are to a certain extent basically the same.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I had the privilege of serving on, the committee -and I can substantiate broadly what the minister has said. It is my impression that Mr. Webster indicated that he was going to submit a brief on this matter which was to be considered by the committee as soon as it was available.


Charles Delmar Coyle: When Mr. Webster was first contacted he said that since he could not come he would send something. I think he was invited to send a brief. But the next day, since he was also unable to prepare a brief, he said it would be all right -to go ahead with the bill if all members of the -committee agreed to do so. I take it from the information I have received that he himself decided not to send a brief.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I also served on that committee, and I think it was my understanding, like the hon. member for Brandon, that we would have a brief submitted by Mr. Webster. I have no recollection of that being changed by wire or otherwise to the effect that he was not going to submit a brief. I do not think it is in the evidence that he said he was satisfied.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I have received my information from the chairman of the committee. He told me that Mr. Webster first talked about a brief that he would send, since he could not come down because he was sick.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Are we not going outside what should be the limits of discussion here at the moment? I do not want to curtail the discussion-, but it seems to me that to argue what should have taken place in the committee, or what did not take place, is going too far away from what has been

allowed by practice in the general discussion on section 1.


Percy Chapman Black: We have had a report by this special committee, and it is upon their findings that this legislation is being recommended. As I gather from the report the minister makes to us tonight, Mr. Webster, acting for the couriers of Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada, is satisfied and recommends this legislation which the minister is submitting to us for implementation.


Alcide Côté: I do not want to repeat what was said in the committee, but I shall be glad to refer my hon. friends to the proceedings and evidence of the committee of Wednesday, March 18 and Thursday, March 19, pages 36 and 58. They will find there the answer to the questions they have asked in this house.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to try to put this discussion on a regularized basis, then I should like to see the report of the committee if the minister has it. The minister shows me the proceedings and evidence. What I want is the report.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I might explain now that the committee is still sitting and considering that part of its reference dealing with the general administration of rural mail. The bill itself has been reported without amendment, and I might add that it was a unanimous report.


Gordon Graydon: Where is the report so we could have it?


Alcide Côté: It is the bill itself.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I might say that before me on the table is the report of the committee, which is the bill; that is all we have before us.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I listened to the debate my understanding was that Mr. Webster was supposed to appear before the committee. He was ill and did not do that, and did not submit any report. I have heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who was a member of that committee, and also the hon. member for Brandon both say they understood that Mr. Webster or someone else was supposed to appear before the committee. Evidently the committee has made a report without hearing the evidence it should have heard.


Alcide Côté: I do not want to repeat what I have said, but I may add that there might be a little misunderstanding. Mr. Webster was asked
Post Office Act
to come. He was sick at the time, and he could not come. He was hoping, though, that he would be able to prepare something to send to the committee. The next day he said that he was not only unable to come but he was unable to prepare a brief without delaying the proceedings of the committee. The position was explained by the chairman of the committee, and that appears in the pages of evidence which I cited earlier.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the committee definitely understand that Mr. Webster, who represented the couriers, was satisfied with the bill?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Oh, yes.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the genial Postmaster General one other question. If the committee is still sitting, what is it going to consider?


Alcide Côté: I think my hon. friend should recall the committee's terms of reference. They were first to consider the bill and second, to consider the general administration of rural mail service. Those are two different things. The bill has been considered and there was a unanimous report on the bill presented to this house, but the committee is still sitting to consider the second part of the reference.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I want to ask a question about the explanatory note which says:

while a contract is still in force, increase the amount payable thereunder during the unexpired term thereof.
Does that mean that you can increase the amount if the contract were for, say $1,200 or $1,400?


Alcide Côté: Might I ask my hon. friend the paragraph to which he is referring?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I refer to the explanatory note on the opposite page to section 1, the fifth line. Does that mean you can increase the amount of the contract if it is under $1,000?


Alcide Côté: A readjustment may be made for contracts not only under $1,000 but also for contracts over $1,000. It relates to all postal contracts except those mentioned in section 29 which are, incidentally, contracts with railroads, etc.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I still cannot understand why this bill is before us when the committee appointed to consider it is still meeting and has not submitted a report. I did not receive any definite report. A committee report, to the effect that they recommend this bill,

Post Office Act
should have come before the house and be on the record. I do not think there is any great hurry, Mr. Chairman, to put this bill through. I know this bill is going to give the Postmaster General almost absolute powers. In almost every section you will see a reference to the fact that where the Postmaster General considers it in the public interest, he may do so and so. The whole bill is made up of references to the fact that the Postmaster General shall have this power, and he may do this or he may do that.
If this committee is still in session and is going to make any recommendations at all concerning contracts, we cannot deal with this bill because it has to do with contracts more than with anything else. I cannot understand why we should pass this bill and then perhaps have the committee bring in a different report. If they did that we would have to discard this bill and work from the report which the committee made. If that is not the case, it must be an attempt to get Bill No. 107 passed and then go back to the committee and say, "We have no more use for you; close up and put in a unanimous report on everything we have done in Bill No. 107". That is not going to be satisfactory to anyone.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I interrupt the hon. member, because it is a point of order upon which he is rising at the moment. He is saying we should not be considering this bill at this time. I might refer the hon. member to page 380 of Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, March 19, where he will read:
Mr. McCubbin, from the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 107, an act to amend the Post Office Act, presented the second report of the said committee, as follows:
Your committee has considered the said bill and has agreed to report it without amendment.
This is the bill, which is now to be studied in committee of the whole after having gone through first and second readings.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That was unanimous.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then that is the end of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has a perfect right to see the chairman of the special committee, ask him to call it into session, and then make what representations he wishes to that committee, although he may not be a member of it. It is a standing practice for a member who is not a member of a standing or a special committee to ask, when the committee is sitting, that he appear before it and make his representations. But at this moment what is before the committee of the whole is a bill amending the Post Office Act; and we

should be dealing not with the proceedings before the special committee but with the sections of this bill. I think hon. members will agree that so far we have heard discussion of nothing but proceedings before the special committee and that, in my submission, is entirely out of order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am not a member of this committee but, from reading this bill, I want to say that it is a step in the right direction for the rural mail carriers of Canada. Items this bill will cover have come to my attention time and time again in connection with various rural mail carriers throughout my part of the country in connection with the money they were going to receive.
If they were not receiving an adequate sum of money for the services rendered to the people in that part of the country, and if they felt that was the case, they would write to the Post Office Department, and in most cases they would have to call for new tenders. Then some person would proceed to tender who had no conception of the work involved, and he might be awarded the contract because he was able to deliver a bond or he was able to show that he had proper equipment to carry on the job. But at the end of six months or three months that man would realize that he was going to go bankrupt if he continued at that price, and then he would throw up the contract. In the meantime the man who had asked for a reasonable sum of money would have been upset and would have turned to another vocation in order to provide his livelihood. The net result would be that the recipients of the mail, the people of this country who are looking for mail delivery, would be upset and would not get the mail service to which they were entitled.
From reading this act I think I can say there is no doubt about it that it is one step in the right direction-and I want to compliment the committee-so that our mail carriers will probably get somewhere near an adequate remuneration for the services they render to the people of Canada. Further steps can be taken and improvements can be made, but definitely this bill provides for an improvement in the conditions under which these men have been working, and I am glad to see it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say one word in that connection. I think there are three members of the committee present. We endorsed this bill unanimously. The reason we were trying to rush it through was largely that mentioned by the hon. member who spoke previously, namely that the sooner we get it through the sooner we can do something for the underpaid rural mail carriers.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask one question. I am not a member of the committee, but I have received a communication from a rural mail carrier who delivers mail in my own district and who is a man of considerable experience and intelligence. He asks if fair remuneration will be provided for every carrier for his services and for the use and maintenance of automobiles and other equipment as well as an added sense of security. Is provision made for the maintenance of his automobile?


Mr.   Coie@St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville: All items of cost will be considered in making the adjustments.


Albany M. Robichaud: I am not a member of the committee, but in my constituency I think there are a small number of rural mail carriers. Perhaps Gloucester has the smallest number of rural mail carriers of any constituency in my province of New Brunswick. I have, however, received several representations-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I might point out generally-


Albany M. Robichaud: It is just a question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes, but if I allow the hon. member to ask a question having to do with conditions of rural mail carriers, then I will have to allow others to do so. I might refer the hon. member to page 197 of Votes and Proceedings. There he will find the order of reference establishing the special committee to which was entrusted the task of first considering this amending bill, and further of studying the regulations, general administration and operation of the rural mail delivery service, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to print its evidence and proceedings from day to day and so on. Therefore his problem can still be submitted to the special committee. At this moment let us examine the bill.


Albany M. Robichaud: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but my question was in line with the question asked iby the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes. It was precisely
because the hon. member for Nanaimo asked a question that I realized that the hon. member was going to ask a similar one; and that is why I stopped him.


Albany M. Robichaud: So I am victimized.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall we pass on to section 2?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask one question. Suppose we pass this section-
Post Office Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you mean before the snow flies or after?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then suppose the committee sat tomorrow, or Monday, or some day. They cannot deal with this matter any more in that committee. They cannot bring in	any	recommendations. They	have
already stated that they are not going to make any changes in or offer any criticism whatsoever of the section we are on. Is that the understanding, namely that the committee have no more work? As I said, they have now closed up.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Of course all I can say at the moment is that the order of reference of the special committee is right there in Votes and Proceedings. The chairman of the committee and the members thereof decide their own procedure. As far as they are concerned, we in the house have nothing to do with it. But what we have here before us is a bill to amend the Post Office Act. That is what we are dealing with. Shall we pass on to section 2?


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, may I say one word. Through the years I have tried to give to this rural mail problem as much constructive thought as I possibly could. Having gone over the various proposals that have been made from time to time, I must confess that I am practically driven back to the position that I do not know any other way out at the moment than that which the bill has provided.
It may be that there are other ways out, but I do not know of any. You cannot put them on a civil service basis because they will not go on it. They do not perhaps want to rout out a lot of them who are there now. You cannot leave them on a tender basis without some kind of elasticity or latitude because it is a throat-cutting job with a great many people and the result is that that is where much of the injustice has arisen. While I have been arguing and would continue to argue that we have to watch out that we do not get this on a straight patronage basis, one of the things that was interesting to me when the debate took place previously was an observation made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I must confess that I thought there was quite a bit in what he said.


Mr. Weir:: There always is.


Gordon Graydon: I would not have thought it would be necessary to mention that. You would almost think it was the exception to the rule, but I would not agree with you on that.


William Gilbert Weir: I was just helping you out.

Post Office Act


Gordon Graydon: As far as I can see, this seems about the best that can be done, at least for the time being, with regard to giving them some elasticity and some satisfaction in knowing that when they are too low in price, are not able to make any money, and are running on starvation rates, the minister can do something for them. That is really the agreeable part of it. It may be that we shall run into many difficulties with this new system. I do not know; but at least it is important that we try it out to see if it will work.
At the same time I should like to caution the minister. He will have to watch that it does not get into the position where it is a straight patronage matter on rural mail routes, not only for the sake of party advantage to anybody but for the sake of the Postmaster General himself. He would be put in a very invidious position if it got into that situation. I am thinking too of the deputy postmaster general, whom we must always have in mind. In any event, it does seem to me that it is deserving at least of a trial, and that is why I rise to endorse it. I do not know of any other way out. If I did I would be presenting it to the committee just now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Lowest tenderer to be accepted except for cause.
Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Section 2 reads:
Where more than one tender has been received, the contract shall be awarded to the lowest tenderer who has offered sufficient security for the faithful performance of the contract, unless the Postmaster General is satisfied that it is not in the public interest to accept the lowest tender . . .
There is a clause in the Post Office Act that says practically the same thing, namely that the Postmaster General need not give the job to a certain fellow. He may be the top man in the competition for a post office job or even for the job as courier, but the Postmaster General need not give him that job. There is a clause in the act which says "for cause". This has happened twice in my riding, and it was absolutely nothing but the barest unadulterated patronage that was used in both cases. I do not blame the deputy postmaster general, because in one instance he was not in town. He was away on his holidays.


Alcide Côté: May I say to my hon. friend that section 2 is not changed at all except for the two words "treasury board".


Albany M. Robichaud: With respect to the deliberations on clause 2, has any consideration been given to the proposition of discontinuing

altogether the granting of rural mail contracts by tender and replacing that with a new system comparable to other similar postal services?


Charles Delmar Coyle: May I repeat that this section has not been changed at all except for the addition of the words "treasury board".


Gordon Francis Higgins: If a contract is let for $1,000 what would the minister require as sufficient security?


Charles Delmar Coyle: What we mean is two guarantors, two men who will vouch for the applicant.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Where there are two tenders and one is lower than the other; when for cause or in the public interest the lowest tenderer does not get the job, if I go to the Postmaster General and ask what is the public interest that requires this, will he be so frank as to tell me, or will he be like an individual who said to me once before when I went to him, "Well, my officials have something to say."


Charles Delmar Coyle: My hon. friend may obtain all the information he wants. He may also ask for the production of papers, that is, papers that are not considered confidential.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am glad to hear that, because that is quite a change from your predecessor.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask a question on this clause. If the Postmaster General finds that one man's route is 15 miles and he is getting $1,000 and the next fellow has a mail route of 24 miles and is getting only $800, will he immediately say that this is not fair and raise him to $2,400.


Charles Delmar Coyle: That is precisely the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to do away with unfairness, to see that people who are suffering injustices get just treatment.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Don't start at the lowest tender, because these people have been robbed all their lives; they have been working for nothing. I should like to have some assurance that you will start at the highest-paid ones and work from there, and not from the lowest ones and work up.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I might satisfy my hon. friend by saying that the readjustment will be made in an objective way after we have received information from the Department of Labour and from our officers in the field. I do not want to give all the details, but instead of readjusting arbitrarily we shall find out what is paid for

comparable services in the same area and we shall pay an adequate remuneration to the contractors.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Comparable services in something else besides driving the mail?


Alcide Côté: Driving the mail and driving something else, perhaps. Similar work might satisfy my hon. friend.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: At that rate you will not have any mail couriers at all after the first year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Where you are increasing the amount paid to a lot of these men who have been using worn-out equipment, will the department see to it that their equipment is brought up to the standards necessary?


Alcide Côté: We always look at all the angles. Public interest was mentioned. That is one way of expressing what we are looking for. We want to see that the taxpayers of this country receive good service, and we want the man who is giving the service to be paid adequately. To achieve that we are looking at the security, the solvency of the men and the equipment, and a comparison of the routes, the number of boxes, the length of the routes; and all these considerations will be looked into and taken into consideration in the decision we are going to make.
(Translation):


Albany M. Robichaud: Before clause 2 of the bill carries may I ask the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) if any consideration has been given, when drafting the said clause, to the proposition of discontinuing altogether the granting of rural mail contracts by tender and replacing it with a new system comparable to other similar postal services, a suggestion which has no doubt been made to him.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Unless I am mistaken, that is the same question the hon. member put, in English, a few moments ago.


Albany M. Robichaud: I received no answer when I put that question in English. I thought I might get one by putting it in French.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. member will agr^e that that is merely repetition.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Contracts with railway, etc.
Gordon Francis Higgins: A lot of first-class mail is now being carried by Trans-Canada Air Lines without the additional three-cent stamp on it.
Post Office Act
Is that an additional cost to the post office or not?


Charles Delmar Coyle: I do not think that has anything to do with the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Adjustment of contracts.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We want a little more time on this. It is now ten o'clock, and if it is in order I will move the adjournment of the discussion, because I want to get more information and I cannot get it from the committee now. The committee is going to be defunct in a short time, and I must get it from the Postmaster General.


Alcide Côté: If my hon. friend wants to get more details I know hon. members will agree to sit five or ten minutes longer.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You can't get it in five minutes. It is ten o'clock, and I move the adjournment of the discussion.


William Gilbert Weir: The hon. member can stay awake another five minutes.


Mr. Herridge:: We have had excellent committees studying this matter and they have brought in excellent reports. Surely we can get it through tonight for the sake of the Postmaster General, who has to leave.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that we carry on with the study of the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Contracts with railway, etc.
Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, we have made fairly good progress with this bill, especially since some of us were not members of the committee. It is now after ten o'clock, and I think the hon. member for Queens was reasonable in suggesting that we should adjourn at this time and take it up again later. I do not wish to hold up the work of the committee, but I think we have advanced far enough, certainly as far as could be expected tonight.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is right.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to give the impression that we were anxious to pass the bill over the opposition of hon. members. However, as has been already suggested, the sooner we have finished with it the sooner we will be helping the carriers in this country.

Post Office Act


Alphonse Fournier: And may I add this. I know all hon. members are interested in this bill. We are now approaching section 8, and there are only nine sections in the bill. The ninth is the section stating when it shall come into force. If we were to adjourn the debate right now all we would be doing would be preventing its coming into force, because we have carried the other sections. Of course I understand that if someone does not want it to pass at this time, it is his right; but could we not dispose of it, inasmuch as we are approaching the last section?


Percy Chapman Black: Does not the Minister of Public Works realize it is after ten o'clock, that we have now made considerable progress, and have had a long day?


William Gilbert Weir: But we are so near the end of it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Then is it agreed that we shall proceed with section 9?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, if it is understood and recognized by everybody that this bill has been railroaded through the committee and through the house, then we will all have to agree with what is being done. But so far as I am concerned I think it is very evident that there has been an effort to railroad the bill through the house.


Alphonse Fournier: Next sitting.


Percy Chapman Black: If it is the view of hon. members that we should pass it under those circumstances, then I presume we will have to acquiesce.


William Gilbert Weir: No; you can object.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member objects to having third reading, then I shall gladly say that third reading shall be at the next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we shall take up-and don't be frightened; they are all small-Bill No. 227, to amend the Customs Tariff; Bill No. 226, to amend the Excise Act, 1934; Bill No. 143, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944; Bill No. 148, to amend the Statistics Act; Bill No. 223, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935;
[Mr. Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville) .1
and then we have these three bills in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development, Bills Nos. 110, 230, and 109.
It being five minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
The following items were passed in committee of supply:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Production service-
Health of animals-
553.	To provide for the payment of compensation to owners of animals and poultry affected with diseases coming under the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above act and regulations thereunder, in the amounts detailed in the estimates. $9,660.
554.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required. $10,000.
Marketing service-
555.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $19,409.
Terminable services-
Freight assistance on western feed grains-
556.	Further amount required, $3,700,000.
557.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs- further amount required, $200,000.
Special-
558.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage-further amount required, $300,000.
559.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces-further amount required, $250,000.
560.	Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural prices support account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1952-53, including authority to credit to the account the net revenue received into the agricultural products board account from the sale of New Zealand meat received in exchange for beef shipped to the United Kingdom, $32,346,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Indian affairs branch-
Education-
561.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $25,000.
B-National Gallery of Canada-
562.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art, in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act-further amount required, $276,000.

[Stage Direction]
B-Crown companies-
563.	To provide for expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence-further amount required, $232,016.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
564.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $20,000.
B-General-
Terminable services-
565.	Contribution to the United Nations refugee emergency fund, $100,000.
Colombo plan-
566.	Notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to be known as the Colombo plan fund to which shall be credited, on or after March 31, 1953, the unexpended balances on March 31, 1953, of votes 113 and 114 of the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1952 (the amounts so credited to be a charge to those votes) and any amounts provided by parliament for the purposes of the Colombo plan; and to provide for payments out of the Colombo plan fund, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, (a) for grants and loans to governments of countries in south and south-east Asia to assist in their economic development, and for special administrative expenses in connection therewith; and (b) for technical co-operation with those countries including the engagement of services of technical and professional experts in accordance with regulations established by the governor in council, the persons so engaged to be contractors and not servants of the crown, $1.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
567. Departmental administration-further amount required for the purchase of books and other reference material for the departmental library
<t/t nnn	^ '
Payments to municipalities-
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-
568.	To provide for payments to municipalities m accordance with the Municipal Grants Act; and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of July 19, 1950, P.C. 3456, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein-further amount required including authority to regard the admiralty properties in the city of St John's Newfoundland, as federal property notwithstanding that formal transfer of administration has not been completed, $153,856.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
569.	To authorize the write-off to consolidated deficit account of costs incurred in 1946 in engraving blank bonds in anticipation of a loan which did not materialize, $68,419.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
570.	To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to
Supply
the estimated current and arrears payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year -further amount required, $532,715.
571.	To authorize and provide for a further special government contribution to reduce the unamortized portion of the civil service superannuation account liability, $25,000,000.
Special-
572.	Grant to the Canadian national European flood relief fund, $1,000,000.
630. To authorize and provide for loans to the Civil Service Co-operative Credit Society, Limited, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $100,000.

[Stage Direction]
Field services-
Fish culture and development branch-
573.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $350,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
574.	Headquarters administration-further amount required, $8,000.
Special-
575.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the approval of the governor in council-further amount required, $10,000.

[Stage Direction]
576.	Office of the secretary to the governor general-further amount required, $50,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General-
577.	To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of Canada-further amount required, $34,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
578.	To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be transferred from vote 185 of the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1952, the sum of $92,0000 representing accrued earnings of inmates of penitentiaries, and to which shall be credited from time to time out of money provided by parliament amounts representing the daily earnings of inmates at rates of remuneration established by the commissioner of penitentiaries with the approval of the treasury board, and out of which payment may be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years, to inmates who are released, in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner of penitentiaries approved by the treasury board, $1.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
579.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the sixth session of the twenty-first parliament, 1952, and full sessional indemnity to March 31, 1953, for the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament, to members of the Senate for days lost
[Stage Direction]
Supply
through absence caused by public business, by illness, or on account of death. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct-further amount required, $4,450.
580.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the Senate who attended the first part of the seventh session which commenced on November 20, 1952, and ended on December 17, 1952, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Christmas adjournment of parliament on December 17, 1952, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date or at any other one time during that session, $5,500.
581.	General administration-further amount required, $10,200.
House of Commons-
582.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment of the full sessional indemnity to March 31, 1953, for the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament, 1952, to members of the House of Commons for days lost through absence caused by public business, by illness or on account of death. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct. Each such payment and each similar payment in a previous year, to be deemed, for the purposes of the members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, to be part of the sessional indemnity of the member for the session in respect of which he received it, $8,675.
583.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the House of Commons, who attended the first part of the seventh session, which commenced on November 20, 1952, and ended on December 17, 1952, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Christmas adjournment of parliament on December 17, 1952, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date or at any other one time during that session, $18,000.
584. General administration-estimates of the clerk-further amount required, $59,180.
585.	Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms-further amount required, $2,000.
586.	To provide an amount required for defraying expenses of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's visit to Canada-further amount required, $7,000.
General-
587.	Printing of parliament-further amount required, $25,000.
Library of parliament-
588.	General administration-further amount required, $77,500.

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
589.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts
such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations- further amount required, $1,224.

[Stage Direction]
National research council-
590. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amounted required, $725,450.
Atomic energy control board-
Atomic energy project (now Atomic Energy of Canada Limited)-
591.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $310,000.
592. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, and to provide for payment to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing and other works constructed at Deep River during 1952-53-further amount required, $666,750.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
593.	General administration-further amount required, $5,000.
594.	Customs excise seizure expenses and adjustments-further amount required, $48,000.

[Stage Direction]
595.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration-further amount required, $870,000.

[Stage Direction]
596.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $7,000.
597.	Stationery branch-operation of stationery stores-further amount required, $40,000.
598.	Plant equipment and replacements-further amount required, $18,265.
599.	Distribution of official documents-further amount required, $6,500.

[Stage Direction]
Engineering branch-*
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board many increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-further amount required-
600.	Nova Scotia ($21,000, less the amount of $20,999 available from savings in other listed projects detailed in previous estimates for 1952-53 for this province), $1.
Generally-
601.	Grand river-contribution towards improvements, $23,000.

[Stage Direction]
Engineering and water resources branch-
Water resources division-
Water resources division, including the administration of the Dominion Water Power and Irrigation Acts-
602.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $12,000.
General-
603.	To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence-further amount required, $150,000.

[Stage Direction]
631. To provide for advances to the Northwest Territories power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures under the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act, the following capital expenditures having been made from advances made to the commission in the fiscal year 1952-53 under section 17(2) of the said act:	(a) Mayo
river hydro electric power project, $993,000, (b) Fort Smith diesel electric plant, $7,000; an advance of $200,000 to be made for further capital expenditures in the fiscal year 1952-53 in respect of the Mayo river hydro electric power project, $1,200,000.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
604.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for damage to and loss of furniture and effects, under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $35,000.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
605.	Statistics-further amount required, $99,278. Canada Grain Act-
606. Administration-further amount required $6,200. 4 '
Board of grain commissioners
[Stage Direction]
607.	Operation and maintenance expenses, including inspecting, weighing, registration, etc - further amount required, $350,345.
Canadian government elevators-
608.	Operation and maintenance expenses-further amount required, $75,685.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
609.	Operation, maintenance and repairs-further amount required, $60,000.
610.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $6,760.
Nautical services-
611.	Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates- further amount required, $1,145,
Pilotage service-
612.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $28,000.
68i08-215J
Supply
613.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and new equipment-further amount required, $68,907.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
614.	Contract dredging-capital-further amount required, $311,978.
North Sydney, Nova Scotia-Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, car ferry and terminals deficit, 1952-
615.	To provide for the payment during the fiscal
year 1952-53 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications, approved by the Minister of Transport made by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in the payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the North Sydney, Nova Scotia -Port-aux-Basques,	Newfoundland, ferry and
terminals arising in the calendar year 1952 $1,915,532.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit, 1952-
616.	Additional amount in excess of the sum of $1,485,000 already appropriated, to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1952-53 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1952-further amount required, $34,767.
Maritime Freight Rates Act-
617.	Additional amounts in excess of the sum of $9,910,000 already appropriated for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, during the fiscal year 1952-53, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways, and in the case of other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1952 (chap. 79, statutes of 1927, as amended)-further amount required, $334,552.
General-
618.	To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $23,799.
Air services-
Civil aviation division-
619.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder-further amount required, $33,000.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
620.	Civil aviation services-further amount required, $100,000.
621.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or interna-
[Stage Direction]
Supply
tional agencies for tile operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities- further amount required, $10,000.
B-General-
Air transport board-
622.	Subventions for air carriers, as detailed in the estimates, $125,000.
Canadian maritime commission-
623.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $5,334.
Transport-
Air services-
632.	To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of financing the purchase of materials and supplies to be held in northwest communications system stores for use on both capital and maintenance works, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any one time not to exceed $125,000, of which $100,000 has already been provided under vote 559, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1952, $25,000.
633.	To provide for recoverable advances to enable extension of northwest communications system facilities between Edmonton and the Yukon-Alaska border, $130,000.

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
624.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act-further amount required, $1,600,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
625. Employers liability compensation-further amount required, $700,000.
626.	To authorize and provide for payment to the Poppy Fund of Toronto Incorporated of the net unspent balance of the amount of $48,000 authorized by order in council P.C. 503 dated March 16,^ 1937, pursuant to the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, 1936, and paid to the honorary local committee at Toronto, $35,329.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
627.	To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 35A of the Veterans' Land Act, 1942, as amended-further amount required, $40,000.
Terminable services-
628.	Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners-further amount required, $325,000.
Veterans Affairs-
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
634.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; refunds to veterans (sections 9A and 19); and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $600,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
629.	To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 35 of the National Housing Act by the amount paid out of the special account in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1951-52, $1,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 30, 1953