1953-05-14

THE CORONATION


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What universities or colleges in Nova Scotia were invited to send representatives on the occasion of the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen?
2.	What universities or colleges accepted?
3.	Were the representatives from the universities or colleges selected by these institutions or by the government?
4.	Are the expenses paid by the government?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	An offer was made to the following universities in Nova Scotia to recommend the names of their representatives and their wives for invitations to attend the coronation in Westminster Abbey: Acadia University, Wolf-ville, N.S.: Mount Saint Vincent College, Halifax, N.S.; Kings University, Halifax, N.S.; College Sainte Anne, Church Point, N.S.; Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.; St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.; St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, N.S.; Nova Scotia Technical College, Halifax, N.S.
2.	St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.; St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, N.S.
3.	The representatives of these institutions were selected by them.
4.	No.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday another part of sessional paper No. 18 was tabled. This one is labeled "CC". It is a reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Wentworth. This one is in relation to the purchase of neckties for the armed forces for the period January 1, 1950, to December 31, 1952, and gives a quantity of 1,053,417 and a cost of $337,645.16. May I ask how close the remainder of this sessional paper is to being completed? The various parts of the sessional paper have been tabled in the house in dribs and drabs from time to time. I wonder how close the balance is to being ready.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: I
am afraid there must be some misunderstanding. The hon. member for Wentworth placed on the order paper 22 or 23 questions, each of which had three parts. They were passed as orders for returns and the orders for returns have been brought down as the information has been collected from the various district offices of the Department of Defence Production. There have been no partial returns except in two instances, I think, where mistakes were found in the original returns and supplementaries were brought down. The return tabled yesterday was a separate return and a complete answer to the question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) if there could be an undertaking that the questions which are unanswered will be dealt with in some way? I would point out that some of these questions go back for nearly two months. They are not questions in regard to which any objection has been raised as to form, and they do not seem to entail an undue amount of inquiry. I would think that we should have an undertaking of some kind which will ensure that the returns to these questions will be made available within a reasonable period following the termination of sittings of this house.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I can assure the Leader of the
Opposition that instructions were given to prepare these returns and answers with all possible dispatch. Returns that are not made in one session of parliament have to be made at the following session of the same parliament; but I understand that does not apply if there is a dissolution of parliament. However, if we are still on this side of the house-*


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -we will know that this information is desired, and I have no doubt that the ordinary procedure for making it apparent that the information is required will be adopted by those who have put the

Inquiries of the Ministry questions. It may be, with respect to such questions as cannot be answered, that the questions will have to be placed on the order paper again. However, if we are here we will have had ample notice that the information is required and I would consider that we would be subject to serious reproach if we had not done anything in the meantime to put us in the position of being able to give the answers.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we all recognize that unless there are any unexpected events this is likely to be the last opportunity when these questions can be dealt with. By that I am not speaking about today, because I do not suggest that is a matter that can be determined at this point. But certainly, as far as this session is concerned, there will be no further opportunity to deal with these things. I would point out that the first question remaining unanswered has been on the order paper for two months. The next one has been on the order paper for a month and a half and the next one has been there for over a month. There has been no suggestion that any of these questions raises any serious problems from the point of view of the work involved; and I should think that the impression should not be left that the wish or otherwise of the government to answer questions should be the deciding factor in a case of this kind. If that were accepted as a proposition it would be easy at any time to deny answers to questions that are unanswered, simply by the process of leaving them in this way and having them disappear with the dissolution of parliament. I feel it would be very helpful to the whole process of the house if the Prime Minister would say that these will be accepted as orders for returns and the answers given within thirty days.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No returns can be made except when the house is in session. I would not think it would change the situation at all if these questions were made orders for returns. If they are orders for returns and parliament is dissolved, they lapse. If they are questions that remain unanswered, there has been this notice that the information was desired, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that instructions have been given in all departments to prepare the information.
If parliament is to be dissolved there is going to be an election and we do not want to create any grounds for criticism which we can avoid; and we have been trying to act in that way and not be subject to any reproach for having withheld any information. The hon. gentleman says the first question
[Mr. St. Laurent.l

has been on the order paper for two months. Well, it asks what amounts have been spent each year since April 1, 1945, in the counties of (a) Chicoutimi, (b) Lapointe, and (c) Lake St. John by (1) the architectural branch and (2) the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works. Second, for what purposes and what amount in each case for each year. Now the period covers eight years. That involves a lot of work. It is information which hon. members have the right to ask for but they must certainly expect that it will take some time to compile. I am told that instructions were given immediately but the information has to be obtained, it has to be checked, and it has not been possible to complete the return up to the present moment.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Question No. 2 is not in that position.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with his answer to the Leader of the Opposition concerning the difficulty in getting answers to questions. Could he tell me what the difficulty is in getting an answer to question No. 2 on today's order paper?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: So far as I am concerned, there has been no difficulty at all. I had no difficulty in informing those who were getting information that I am not a director, officer or member of any advisory board of any Canadian corporation, unless it may be that some of those non-profit organizations of which I am a patron or honorary member have a corporate form. But this question covers very completely the whole field. I found no difficulty, as soon as the question was asked, in supplying the information that concerned me.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary
question? Would it not have been just as easy for the other members of the cabinet to give the same information, and the answer could have been given a month ago?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know about
the private affairs of the other members of the cabinet. I know what the situation is with respect to public affairs, but I am not in a position to supply the other information. I have not been as inquisitive as the hon. member who asked this question about the private affairs of my colleagues.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the answer given by the Prime Minister to the question of the hon. member for Broadview, when the Prime Minister spoke about the private affairs of the members of the cabinet.

What is the rule observed in the cabinet with respect to serving on boards of corporations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: So far as I have been informed, and I got the information when I was first invited to become a member of the cabinet, one's conscience was to be his own guide.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Since these questions have been asked, and some remarks made about there being no difficulty in getting answers, I think I should correct what may have been a wrong impression about question No. 3. There is very real difficulty in getting some of the information necessary to answer that question. There has been correspondence between the hon. member who asked the question and myself concerning the difficulty, and he is thoroughly familiar with it. It is not a simple matter, as there is real difficulty in securing the information.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
wonder if the Prime Minister would enlighten us further with regard to question No. 2? I was greatly surprised by what the Prime Minister said as to conscience being the guide. I wonder if he will direct-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like to
interrupt the hon. members, but I am afraid we are getting into a debate on this subject, which is not in accordance with the rules of the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just wanted to know if the Prime Minister would direct us to the source where we can get this information.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The source from which
I got it at the time was the prime minister of the day.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, on March 23, 1953, as recorded at page 3182 of Hansard, certain questions which I had asked were passed as an order for return. They had to do with bank protection at Kirkland island, in the Fraser river, British Columbia. I wonder if the Prime Minister could have inquiries made today to see whether or not that return is ready and might be tabled later in the day?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall be glad to do that.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)? I recognize that he is not able to be in his place at the moment, but in view of the fact that this may be the last opportunity for asking questions on the orders of the day may I ask the question now? If the minister is with us later this day he might be permitted to make a reply to my question.
In view of the minister's statement on Friday last, as recorded at page 5018 of Hansard, that following the tabulation of the results of the national sickness survey the government would be able to give the matter of health insurance further consideration, and in view of the fact that the dominion bureau of statistics has now released a tabulation of those statistics, will that further consideration to the matter of health insurance now be given?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Is he in a position to say anything with regard to the rather dire and dangerous situation in the Suez; whether the Canadian government is being consulted and \yhat is the attitude of the government in general to that situation?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can or should say very much at this time on the general policy in regard to relations between the United Kingdom and the government of Egypt over the Suez. We have been kept very closely informed by the United Kingdom government about developments. We have also heard from Washington regarding the visit of the United States Secretary of State to that area. The situation at the present time is an unhappy one and we have made arrangements with the United Kingdom government which we are hopeful will take care of any emergency that might arise affecting Canadian citizens who may now be in Egypt.

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Has
the minister anything new to report to the house regarding the truce talks at Panmun-jom and the extent to which the United Nations are taking an interest in the carrying out of their resolution, as distinct from treating the negotiations as merely a Washington matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the hon. gentleman will know from reading press reports, counter-proposals have been submitted to the latest proposals for an armistice put forward by the communists. Those counter-proposals were submitted by the unified command at Pan-munjom. They are under discussion at the present time and until there is some final result from those discussions I would prefer to say nothing about them.
As far as the United Nations are concerned, a resolution was passed in April by which the United Nations general assembly could be called together to consider this question, at the request of a majority of the members. No such action has yet been taken and the negotiations have been conducted by the unified command.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I apologize for not having given him notice, but my secretary has been chasing around like a hen on a hot griddle making sure the odds and ends are tidied up before I leave. Will the minister tell the house if he has received any new proposals from British Columbia concerning the handling of the Sons of Freedom problem?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: No. I have not.



REFERENCE TO LONG WORKING HOURS OF STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might
express to the appropriate authorities the hope that there will be suitable recognition of the fact that we have been working some of the members of our staff around here rather long hours in the last few weeks, and particularly the last few days. I think all

the members of the house would like there to be some special recognition of this extra work. I refer to many different groups of our employees, but in particular to the members of the Hansard staff. I am sure we all agree that they and the printing bureau have done an excellent job under very trying circumstances and under the necessity of having to work extra long hours. I am sure all of us would like to see some appropriate recognition of that fact.

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



DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
408. 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, $700,000.
The Chairman:: I understand that in addition to this item we have to consider items 763, 727 and 541.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last night I was making
some observations and asking some questions with respect to the construction of the head office building for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I had asked the minister to, give the cost of construction of a floor of the building, and I presume there will be no difficulty about that. The answer at page 820 of Hansard for December 17, 1952, indicates that the spring floor or the so-called "recreation floor" cost an additional $2,500. Could we have the cost of construction of the whole floor, please?


Mr. Winters:: The cost of construction of the whole floor was $7,500.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot imagine that is the cost of construction of a floor of the building. Surely the way to arrive at the cost of constructing the floor is to take the number of floors and divide the number into the total cost of constructing the building. Perhaps we had better start with the total cost of construction; could we have that figure please?


Robert Henry Winters: The total cost of construction of the building, Mr. Chairman, was $1,800,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that figure now complete?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, sir.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume that is the building only, and does not include either land or equipment?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or landscaping?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the total space?
Would the minister give it whichever way he prefers, either the floor space or the cubic feet of space in the building, and how much of that is assigned to this so-called recreation floor.


Robert Henry Winters: The cubic content of the building is 1,750,000 cubic feet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And this floor?


Robert Henry Winters: The area of the floor is 6,000 square feet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last night the minister indicated that, on a cubic foot basis, the cost of erecting this building compared favourably with that of other buildings. Can he give us the figure as to the cubic foot cost of the construction of the building?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that the cubic foot cost of the building is about $1.08.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What facilities does the building contain apart from space directly assigned to office use? Last night I asked about the auditorium. From the minister's answer I was not clear whether the auditorium is on a separate floor from the recreation floor or whether he was treating them together. Will the minister clarify that question with respect to the auditorium and its cost? I asked for some information about specifications and so on. Can he tell us something more about the auditorium? Then I presume there are cafeteria facilities. Perhaps the minister could say a word about that matter also, and any other facilities that could be classified as facilities designed to accommodate the employees, apart from office space.


Robert Henry Winters: The non-working space consists largely of a cafeteria and the auditorium which has been referred to in the house occasionally as the recreation area. It is one and the same thing. There are only the two, the cafeteria and the auditorium.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to question No. 5 at page 820 of Hansard indicates that the auditorium cost $40,000.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct. The figure I gave my hon. friend was just for the floor. The $7,500 was just for the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then we have been at cross purposes because when I was speaking about the floor I was thinking rather about the storey of the building, not just the covering that people walk on. That fact perhaps explains why this figure for the cost of the floor looked to me to be disproportionately small. Whether he works it out in actual figures or on the cubic foot calculation, can the minister tell us what was the cost of the
Supply-Resources and Development construction of that storey of the building known as the recreation floor?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know how accurately I can get at those figures of the cost of construction of a particular room within a building. But as I indicated in a return tabled earlier, the cost of the auditorium was approximately $40,000. The floor area, as I said earlier, was 6,000 square feet. The height is about 22 feet. That means that there is a cubic content there of about 132,000 cubic feet at a total cost of $40,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Again those figures do not jibe. The minister indicated that the over-all cost of the construction of that building had worked out at $1.08 per cubic foot.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the cubic content of this
storey of the building is 132,000 cubic feet, then obviously the cost of the construction of that storey was something like $145,000.


An hon. Member:: A dollar a foot.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At $1.08 per cubic foot, if
the cubic foot content of that storey of the building is 132,000 cubic feet as the minister has indicated, I think he will agree that would indicate a cost of construction of that storey of approximately $145,000.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, it is extremely difficult to allocate costs of a particular room within a building. There is nothing in this room. It is just an empty space of 132,000 cubic feet; and it is estimated that, as such, it cost $40,000. If my hon. friend wishes to take the $1.08 which is the average cost per cubic foot of the whole building, and allocate that same unit of cost to the 132,000 cubic feet, then he would arrive at the figure which he has just put before the committee. But on the basis of additional cost for this 132,000 cubic feet as such, it is estimated that it was $40,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask a question with reference to the auditorium? I gather that there are no stationary seats in it. It is open; it has been left open?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is there any stage?


Robert Henry Winters: There is a small platform.
There are no fixed seats in the auditorium.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What persons are entitled
to use the auditorium? I presume we can refer to the recreation floor and the auditorium as being synonymous?


Robert Henry Winters: One and the same thing.
5354	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask what persons are entitled to make use of that floor, at what times, and for what purposes?


Robert Henry Winters: The purpose of the auditorium was to provide, in the first place, a room large enough to accommodate the employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for meeting purposes, particularly when the field people are brought in- so they can meet together. Hitherto they have had no place where that could be done. It also provides an area sufficiently large to enable the corporation to exhibit the vast number of drawings it has occasionally for display purposes and for models of small houses. I see that the hon. member for Lake Centre does not believe that.


John George Diefenbaker: I was wondering whether a spring floor was necessary for that.


George Harris Hees: I was wondering that same thing.


Mr. Ferguson:: He is greatly surprised, that is all, knowing the minister as he does. He could not stand it.


Robert Henry Winters: However, I will continue to deal with facts and let my hon. friends draw their own conclusions.


Howard Charles Green: Do they separate them out on the floor?


Robert Henry Winters: It also provides space to develop and display models of small houses. My hon. friends may not know it, but that is quite an operation.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: A child with its blocks.


Robert Henry Winters: At the same time it provides a recreational area where, some two nights a week, the employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are permitted to play badminton. The area, of course, can also be used as a dance floor. I am told that in the approximately one year the building has been in use up to date it has been used for dance purposes about four times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask what is the seating capacity of the auditorium?


Robert Henry Winters: About 600.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How many employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are there in the building?


Robert Henry Winters: There are 632.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is built for capacity attendance?


Robert Henry Winters: It is built for 600 people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has indicated that there have been four dances there since


the building was opened. When was the building opened?


Robert Henry Winters: July 15, 1952.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I note that the building is open two nights a week for badminton. What happens on the other nights of the week?


Robert Henry Winters: The room is in darkness.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who are entitled to make
use of this recreation floor for badminton or for dances?


Robert Henry Winters: The employees of Central
Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the building was
constructed with these facilities included, was the government consulted about it, and did it [DOT] give its approval to the construction of these additional facilities?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the minister for his answers. He has given straight answers to straight questions, and I thank him for his frankness. At this stage of the session, Mr. Chairman, I shall not say as much as I think the occasion calls for, but I will say this. While we all recognize the importance of the work assigned to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-and it is a very heavy responsibility that has been assigned to that corporation, and we wish to see adequate accommodation provided for the operating and administrative needs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-nevertheless what has been said here today and last night on this subject simply does not justify expenditure of money of the taxpayers of Canada on this floor in the way that has been indicated.
A spring floor for dances and badminton may be very valuable. There are many people in this country who would like to have facilities of that kind available to them, but they have to get along without them or provide them as best they can out of fees they contribute to organizations or associations, to enjoy those advantages.
I have always said I would like to see the government a model employer, but I think this is going beyond reason. The suggestion was offered last night that because this building is located some distance from downtown Ottawa it justified the inclusion in this building of a whole floor for recreational purposes, so called.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not an entire floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that the distance that most of those who are employed in it are from there is all the more reason to

indicate there was no necessity for including this expensive facility in this building, because those who make use of it in the two nights a week that it is open for badminton obviously come some distance to be there.
We are told there have been four dances there since it was opened last July. That is a period of ten months.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Do they supply special
buses to get them there?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is going to be
a fair question to put to every taxpayer in this country:	Are you satisfied to have your
money used under these circumstances to provide in this handsome structure a whole floor.


Robert Henry Winters: Six thousand square feet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Six thousand square feet.


Robert Henry Winters: On one floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Six thousand square feet to be set aside for the use that has been indicated by the minister. The use that has been indicated thus far by the minister to have made of these facilities in a period of ten months is two nights a week for badminton and a total of four dances.
Money does not come to the taxpayers of this country as easily as that. The easy course that money takes is when the government gets hold of it. They spend it too easily; they spend it without a sense of responsibility.
The last condemnation of this matter is the fact that the government approved of that expenditure before it was made; because the minister has frankly indicated that the government did approve the inclusion of these facilities in this building before the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation went ahead with it at a cost of $1,800,000. It is one more evidence of the fact that in matters of money, as well as in many other ways that we see daily here, this government has lost all sense of responsibility to this house and to the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Hosking:: I do not think any hon. member could listen to the argument that was put up by the hon. member without recalling to him some of the things that have happened before, things that have been well planned and turned out to the advantage of all the people of the country. I should like to recall to him that at the time Sir John A. Macdonald laid out the parliament buildings, the east block and the west block, the then Conservative premier of the province of Ontario told him in just about the same terms 68108-338
Supply-Resources and Development as the hon. member for Eglinton has just used in regard to our minister that this was planning for a thousand years ahead, and would never be used. You and I have lived to see the day when these buildings are not big enough.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who was the Ontario Conservative premier who offered that stricture?


Henry Alfred Hosking: You look it up in the library.


George Harris Hees: Who was he?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who was he?


Henry Alfred Hosking: You look it up in the library.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the hon. member to identify the person to whom he refers as the Conservative premier of Ontario, because it will be remembered that the premiers of Ontario from confederation until after the death of Sir John A. Macdonald were Liberals. They were the Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald and Sir Oliver Mowat.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You will find out that what I have told you-


George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Eglinton has told you. Sit down, junior.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I should like to suggest that all that we have heard previous to these remarks was eyewash and what we have been getting this morning is eyewash.


George Harris Hees: And that is what we are getting right at this moment.


Henry Alfred Hosking: When these buildings were
planned by Sir John A. Macdonald there was a Liberal premier, if you wish, who said that at that time they looked to be much too large and far too pretentious. I commend the minister for the good planning that he has put into that building. The building is in a growing area; the figures show that. If the minister has planned to use today some space that he will need in the future for offices, that is the sensible thing to do. To erect a building at this time to take care of future needs shows good judgment. It is all very well for a lawyer to rise in his place and mislead the public with a great flow of eloquent language and with no regard for engineering principles whatever. It is all very well for him to try to mislead the people into thinking that mistakes have been made. We should have some program of planning ahead for more than just one year, and nobody can convince me-not even the hon. member for Eglinton-that in ten years from now that building will be used the way it is today. It will be made into offices.
I am quite sure this country is going ahead, and any man who is responsible for erecting a building of this kind today would
5356	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development erect it so that it would contain room for offices that will be required in the future. Our minister has given leadership; give him credit for showing vision like Sir John A. Macdonald.


George Harris Hees: Does the hon. member think
it was necessary and a good idea to build a floor, which obviously, according to him, is to be used for offices in the very near future, with springs under it? Does the hon. member think that was a good idea, and was it necessary?


Donald Methuen Fleming: And cost $2,500.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: And have office employees
bouncing along the whole floor in years to come, tiptoeing through the twilight. They talk about 'looking to the future. They will have a night staff; they will have clever government employees in the future. They will not be similar to anything we have today. My hon. friend's statement indicates that we shall have no dances over there in the future. All the government employees will be ballet dancers. We are going to lose all that in the future because the floor space with the springs is going to be used for ordinary clerical work. At that time we are going to dispense with the dance floor, and after all the government employees have learned how to dance. That is one of the best stories I have ever heard.
I have a great deal of respect for my hon. friend and also for the minister. I ask:	If
either of these gentlemen were in private business, drawing up plans for a building, which plans would have to be passed by the stockholders or members of the association, would he include plans for dance floors, badminton floors, cafeterias and restaurants? When it is their money they can do what they like with it; but not when it is not their money. Recently I read about an oil man in Texas worth $100 million. He had five or six houses and 30 Cadillacs, all bought with his own money. The facts were written up in Collier's magazine, to show just what a fool a man could be with money.
But this is not the minister's money. This money does not belong to the hon. member for Wellington South; this is the taxpayers' money. Let the taxpayer decide what recreation the civil servants should have. Surely the 600 employees in the civil service who work in that building do not live within a quarter of a mile of it. The fact is that the building is away out on the Montreal road, and it would be a great inconvenience for them to go there for their recreation. It would be most inconvenient to go out there to play badminton at night.


How many employees in any first-class private corporation in Canada have dance halls and badminton courts? No, they want to get away from the buildings in which they work. I am sure that on second thought the minister will never repeat this procedure of putting a dance floor in other buildings he has anything to do with. He has referred to the cost as being only $2,500. But let me say to him that that means $10 each for 250 burnt-out pensioners who need that $10. The pen should be used in connection with these expenditures; it should be used on every five-cent piece.
When Mr. King was prime minister a five-cent piece put him out of office. It was not $2,500. We are all here as representatives of the taxpayers. I believe the members of the government and their supporters regret exceedingly that this government has now approved this example of introducing dance floor and badminton courts into business offices connected with the federal government. And if other ministers recommend the installation of this costly equipment in every new building across Canada, it will run into millions of dollars, not $2,500. You cannot make flesh of one and fowl of another. The whole thing is ridiculous and I am sorry to see the minister doing it.


Mr. Dechene:: Oh, oh.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Oh, you can laugh. That is your privilege. You should be ashamed to laugh at a matter like this.


Joseph Miville Dechene: That is silly.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You are just laughing; all you do is laugh. Get up on your feet and say something.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not purpose saying very much about this item. However, the discussion does indicate a very healthy condition of affairs when estimates presented running into millions of dollars receive the attention this one has received. Indeed, one of the major criticisms of parliament is that estimates are brought down during the dying days of a session with the result that, usually, only a farcical examination is made of them.
This item has been dealt with, and dealt with thoroughly. I think that what has happened in the last couple of days is further evidence of the necessity for a reorganization of parliament to bring it into keeping with present-day conditions. If the estimates were made available to a committee, as are the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, they would receive proper examination, and parliament would discharge its responsibility.

But inevitably the rush for prorogation leads to a lack of examination. That is one of the first things the new parliament will have to face. For certainly, as the situation is today, any minister of the crown could place an estimate for $5 million in the estimates and cover it up with a little camouflage, and, regardless of whether there was any justification for it or not, it would pass, under normal circumstances.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not that easy to get items into the estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: No, perhaps it is not that easy to get them in the estimates. But I am not dealing with that. What I am dealing with is the fact that, if parliament is to maintain its dignity and importance, we must alter our rules so as to provide for the examination of these estimates during the session. While generally I am an opponent of the committee system, I do believe that if committees in respect of the various departments were set up similar to the one dealing with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, there would be a much more careful and complete examination of expenditures.
Having said that, I join with the hon. member for Eglinton in his reference to the expenditure revealed in the item before the committee. The minister, with commendable frankness, to which tribute has already been paid by reason of its being unusually unique, has told the committee that the government approved of the expenditure in advance.
The people of Canada do not want their money spent in this way. However, the other day, during the course of the discussion on his estimates in the house, another minister of the crown, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when it was pointed out to him by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that unjustifiable expenditures were being made in his department, made a comment which I believe will become almost immortal, when he said, "If the services say they need a gold-plated piano, it is our duty to buy it."
The example before the committee now is just another example of the gold-plated-piano type of mind:	Easy come, easy go.
That attitude of mind used to be restricted to one or two ministers; but apparently the spendthrift attitude has spread until today it covers all departments of government.
This is a very serious matter, to see money wasted in this way. For, after all, this body was set up to provide houses for Canadian people, not palaces for itself.
Supply-Resources and Development


George Harris Hees: I would like to take issue with the minister on the statement that this room cost only an additional $40,000. The minister, who is an engineer, must know-and I have very good reason to know, because I have participated in the building of a number of factory buildings and, quite recently, a community centre of which I am a director, and concerning which we gave careful consideration to the cost of additions and subtractions, discussing the matter with one of the most reputable builders in the country- that when you are considering the cost of any additional room in a building you take the average cost per cubic foot, and multiply it by the number of cubic feet which will be added in view of the addition of that room. And that is the cost of the room.
The extra cost of this dance floor is not $40,000; it is simply $1.08 per cubic foot multiplied by 132,000 cubic feet, or approximately $145,000. I think that ought to be put clearly on the record; because the minister and his department know perfectly well that that is the way costs are figured. I wanted to have that straight.


Mr. Cleaver:: Obviously the hon. member
who has just taken his seat is not a contractor. He is totally unhampered by knowledge of building costs, and has offered figures that any contractor would laugh at.
I am not at all surprised that there has been considerable criticism of this item. In every community there will be found a group of conservative-thinking people who will oppose school boards when they suggest the building of an auditorium in a new school. These folk have a right to their own opinion, but fortunately they are not the majority. Wherever you go across Canada you will find new public buildings. In most of our rural sections you will find new union schools which all have beautiful auditoriums. I suggest that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was reasonably modest in providing an auditorium 60 by 100, or whatever the dimensions are totalling 6,000 square feet. Surely in a country as wealthy as Canada the people who work for us are entitled to the normal amenities of life. Local school boards believe that they are spending the ratepayers' money wisely in building such auditoriums. I think now of one recently built in Nelson township adjoining my own town of Burlington. An auditorium almost the size of this auditorium under discussion is incorporated in a 12-room school. There was criticism of that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Hughes Cleaver: All right.
5358	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the auditorium in the school in Nelson township, for example, made available for the use of the public or only employees of the township?


Hughes Cleaver: I do not style school students employees. I say that to the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the difference.


Hughes Cleaver: The auditorium was built to extend additional amenities of life to the school children. Surely Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would not have been forward-looking and would not have been giving the same consideration to the welfare and well-being of its employees that it has shown in a business way in managing this highly profitable institution if it had not provided an auditorium. Is an auditorium 60 by 100 of an unreasonable size considering the tremendous size of the staff of the organization? These people are young people. Many of them are ex-servicemen and they want to have their badminton, their dances and so on. I am not surprised of course that conservative-thinking folk would be opposed to an expenditure of this kind, just as the same type of conservative-thinking folk in the township of Nelson did not want the school children to have an auditorium.


Howard Charles Green: I am rather surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Halton. It is a pretty clear indication that this gold-plated mentality is catching and has now extended from the cabinet down into the private members on the government side of the house. The hon. member has tried to compare a school auditorium with an office auditorium.


Hughes Cleaver: The same type of opposition, the same folk opposing.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether he thinks that civil servants are all school children and should be treated as such, but that is the only inference that one can draw from his remarks.


John Horace Dickey: The only inference that school children can draw from them.


Howard Charles Green: There is absolutely no comparison between an auditorium for school children and an auditorium for the grown people working in this building. Unfortunately the attitude of the government in adopting such a policy is very unfair to a large group of people in Canada. There are still thousands of veterans who are living in basement one-room suites or living with relatives. They are living under terrible conditions all over the country. I know that there are many hundreds of them in that


position in the city of Vancouver. Here we have a corporation whose main job is to help provide housing for veterans and civilians who cannot get homes. The main obstacle to providing homes is the tremendous cost of construction today. This is one government body which should be showing how to build houses and other buildings cheaply. It should be showing how to save money, how to cut down the cost of a home.
The heads of the corporation and the minister responsible, instead of spending their energies trying to reduce costs for the benefit of those Canadians who are living under intolerable conditions, have authorized an expenditure in the headquarters of the corporation of at least $40,000, as the minister has admitted-


Robert Henry Winters: It is not a matter of admission; it was a statement.


Howard Charles Green: Well, it is a statement and the minister is proud of it. They have authorized the expenditure of $40,000 to instal an auditorium, including a dance floor, in the headquarters of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. What worries me about the whole thing is the thinking of the minister and the senior men in the corporation, and the fact that they would even consider taking a step of this kind. It shows how far removed they are from the needs of the people of the country. It shows how little possibility there is of their ever settling the housing problem. I cannot understand how the minister could take the attitude he has taken on this question.
There is need for government help in great developments such as our atomic energy program. Yet the scientists working on that program are doing their work in the basement of the museum while Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation goes out on the Montreal road and builds a $2 million office building with a $40,000 auditorium. This action is unfair to every other department of government. It is unfair to every city and town of Canada that a lead of this kind should be given by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I hope that this bad example will not be carried any further and that some steps will be taken by the minister to see that from now on the heads of this corporation-I am not criticizing the employees but the direction-will concentrate their energies on the real problem facing them, the finding of houses for Canadian people who do not have a home at the present time.


Robert Henry Winters: I think perhaps I should try to bring this matter back into proper perspective after some of the irrelevant speeches that have just been made by some members of the opposition. I must say that I think

the hon. member for Eglinton has tried to keep the matter in perspective, and I welcome criticism when it is made in that light. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has just said that this is a bad example. I wonder whether or not government employees all across Canada will think that it is a bad example on the part of the government and the taxpayers of Canada to try to provide working conditions which are comparable-and the hon. member for Eglinton said this morning that they should be comparable-with conditions provided by good employers throughout the country. I know of no large office building in this country, and I doubt whether the hon. member for Broadview with all his experience as a director knows of any, that is not equipped with a suitable auditorium. On the other hand, I do know of companies that have had to undertake the great expense of constructing auditoriums in their buildings after they had been completed. There is a very real need for sufficient space in any large building to enable the staff to get together for conferences. I doubt whether any member of the opposition will deny that that is part of good administration in any organization. If there is, I would be glad to have him say so-to say whether or not this is a bad example.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister a
question at that point? How many times has the entire staff been assembled in that auditorium for business conferences?


George Harris Hees: There you have it.


Hughes Cleaver: Quite as often as employees of insurance companies.


George Harris Hees: I have not seen them.


Hughes Cleaver: Get around the country and you will see some of them.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Get around your own backyard and you do not see anything like that.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not have the record or the diary of the corporation and I do not know the number of times that the auditorium has been used.


Mr. Hodgson:: You don't have any record so there has been no use.


Robert Henry Winters: There have been meetings
in the auditorium on many occasions. Recently civil defence used the auditorium and found it a very good place.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Perhaps
they could have found other places as convenient.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps they could, but I say that here is space that can be used and is used to advantage by the people of Central
Supply-Resources and Development Mortgage and Housing. It is available for others in the interests of the general public. Now, this space was provided as an auditorium. Does any member of the opposition say that there should not be an auditorium in this building?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: The suggestion has been
made that the objective of Central Mortgage and Housing should be to encourage the building of houses in this country. With that I agree. If I did not agree I would not be devoting to the problem the time I am devoting to it. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra said this was an example of extravagance. I ask him if he thinks that a building of this size, produced at a cost of $1.08 per cubic foot, is an example of extravagance. Can he tell me that he can point to any other similar building that can be produced for that cost? I think that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, by selecting land which was relatively low cost land in this high cost area, and building that type of building where space utilization is high and where the cost per cubic foot is low, has set an example that might well be followed by people building large scale office accommodation across this country, whether these offices be for public use or for private use.
The question seems to resolve itself in the minds of the opposition as to whether there should be an auditorium and whether $40,000 is too much money to spend for that additional accommodation. I can see the argument which the hon. member for Broadview will advance and it is the type of argument that one must consider; but I simply state that this accommodation was provided at a cost of $40,000-and that is a correct statement of the facts. I leave it to the taxpayers of this country, to the voters of this country, and I am prepared even to leave it to the good judgment of some members of the opposition-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The spring floor as well?


Robert Henry Winters: -to say whether or not there should be an auditorium in a building which houses 632 employees under the circumstances in which those people are employed. If it is conceded that there should be an auditorium-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That was never conceded.


Robert Henry Winters: I concede it. I think the public servants of Canada will concede it and I think the taxpayers will concede it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Resources and Development


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask the minister, if he approves of it for this building, whether he approves of constructing an auditorium in the same type of buildings belonging to the federal government across Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Under the circumstances, yes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: For every building with the same number of employees do you suggest that we should now construct an auditorium and a dance floor? Do you approve of that?


Robert Henry Winters: This government considers every problem on its merits.


George Harris Hees: Come, come.


Robert Henry Winters: Under similar conditions my answer is yes. I say that there should be an auditorium and, if there is doubt in anyone's mind about its design, I will say that we called on the advice of the best architects we could find. The architects who prepared the plans and designed the building included in their recommendations the suggestion that this floor should be built. As I told hon. members, it was built. We asked the architects if it was common practice to build floors of this kind and they said that in accordance with modern architectural and construction practice it was desirable. That was their recommendation. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation accepted the recommendation and, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to stand by it. I am prepared to leave it to the taxpayers of this country and to the good judgment of citizens of Canada generally as to whether this building is the sort of building that is a credit to the people of Canada. Moreover, I am willing to leave it to the same judges as to whether or not Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is doing a good job in the interests of the citizens of Canada.


William Joseph Browne: The minister has now come to the defence of this proposition and naturally he would be expected to do so because he is the minister responsible for the department. Previously other supporters of the government have attempted to do so, and the hon. member for Halton especially made comparisons with school buildings. I do not think that on second reflection he would be able to justify the comparisons he made.


Hughes Cleaver: I would rather that you compare this with insurance company buildings.


William Joseph Browne: He has used a comparison with school buildings. Well, naturally, when a school is built, because they have a large population in the school, they have to have an auditorium. They have almost daily congregation in the auditorium and it is an essential part of the school.


Hughes Cleaver: We always get the same type of opposition that we are getting today.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I intervene and say that when we reached these items last evening the house was co-operating towards concluding a study of the estimates of this department. Questions were put, answers were given and it was requested that these items stand until today.
I know that the general discussion which took place was very short and perhaps it was not taken advantage of as it should have been. Therefore, I did not want to curtail the discussion that has been taking place on this matter during the last hour. However, in case the situation that I have foreseen develops differently, perhaps I should say that nowhere in these four items is there any money to be spent towards the building we are discussing. Item 408 has to do with 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. Item 727 provides for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 35 of the National Housing Act. Item 541 provides for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 34 of the National Housing Act in respect of housing projects for veterans and housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland. Item 763 has to do with section 35 of the National Housing Act.
As I say, discussion has carried on but I would hope that hon. members would perhaps come back to the co-operative spirit with which they were imbued last evening.
The hon. member for St. John's West may continue.


William Joseph Browne: I would not have spoken if this controversy had not arisen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would inform the committee just which one of these items we are on. I want to be sure that I do not miss the item having to do with section 35.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I know that the hon. member is interested in item 727 and in order to provide the widest possible latitude I have kept the four items before me-because the minute I say we are discussing item 408, then, definitely, the hon. member is more out of order than ever. As I say, if hon. members wish to discuss this matter of the building all day, I shall be sorry that I ever tolerated the discussion in the first place. If the hon. member is the last speaker on this subject,

perhaps we can revert to item 408 and then have our remarks relevant to the item.


William Joseph Browne: I would not have entered into this controversy if you had not tolerated it so far, Mr. Chairman, but I could not resist answering the argument made by the hon member for Halton, which seems to be so irrelevant and illogical. This is the case of a government building, and the minister had stated it correctly. He stands by it. He says this is a government building, and we wish to behave like private employers. But you are not dealing with private money, you are dealing with public money. I say that neither this minister nor any other minister is the person who should provide amenities of that kind. Necessities should be provided, yes, but not facilities for entertainment like that. If you do that you will be establishing a principle which the government will have to follow all over Canada, to provide similar amenities in all the other buildings.
The minister speaks of a building with 632 employees. Is he going to limit it to a building containing that number of people? What about a building containing 500 or 400 or 300? Where are you going to draw the line? Are they not equally entitled to have a dance floor and badminton courts? If this criticism had not arisen, would the minister go on to provide tennis courts and football fields for those who like outdoor amusements, as well as those who like indoor amusements? I do not think this is justified. When the minister speaks about the general public, has the general public been invited or actually used this building? There are many other auditoriums in this city that could be used for this purpose without going to the considerable expense of erecting this building. I think this is a policy that should stop right here, unless we want to go completely into a socialistic policy, and that is a tendency that this Liberal government has shown for many years.


John George Diefenbaker: You were kind enough to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the committee should come within the provisions of the section, and I now wish to do that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Of item 408?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I want to ask the
minister a number of questions concerning this item, which is for the provision of 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. The amount asked for is $700,000. I return to a subject that comes four-square within the purview of this section, namely construction contracts for the Booth Construction Company Limited
Supply-Resources and Development at Camp Borden. The questions which I asked in relation to this matter were passed as an order for return on May 9. The answer which I have received indicates that this company has been engaged during the past four years by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to do certain construction work at Camp Borden, the amount of the contract being $2,148,336. These contracts cover four different types of construction and public works totalling some 394 housing units as well as the sewers and water mains.
This company did not complete these contracts, and in particular the construction of 100 housing units under one contract and 90 under another. One question which I asked was as follows:
Were the subcontractors of the said company, or suppliers of goods, wares or merchandise or services, in connection with the said contract or contracts duly paid?
The answer was that, although the contracts are with the prime contractor, the Booth Construction Company Limited only, the prime contractor and some of the contractors and suppliers have informed Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that there remain outstanding amounts to some subcontractors and suppliers of materials.
Then, the last question was:
If not, what is the total amount of the unpaid indebtedness of the said company to each of the subcontractors or suppliers, giving the amounts owing and the names and addresses of each of them.
Now, when this matter came up the other day I pointed out that I would, on Monday, make an application to the house. Unfortunately, under the rules such a matter can only be brought up under circumstances that would require almost a week's notice. The suggested course that I had in mind was not followed, and is not being followed because of the fact that, generally speaking, the house desires to have its proceedings come to an end. Therefore, I follow the course of asking a few questions of the minister.
To my question as to what was the unpaid indebtedness, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation stated they received representations from Booth Construction Company Limited, suppliers and subcontractors, but the representations are insufficient to provide an answer to this question, both as to the list of creditors and the amount owing on account of these two jobs. Now then, Mr. Chairman, accepting that answer in its form, I shall amend the question so as to permit of the information being given. The amended question will be, what is the total amount of the unpaid indebtedness of the said company of which the department or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has had notice?

Supply-Resources and Development Then, I would ask the minister to let the committee know how many contractors have communicated with the department or with the corporation complaining that they were not paid. Thirdly, I should like the minister to place before the committee, in summary form, the provisions of the contract with the Booth Construction Company Limited which deal with the necessity of the contractor supplying proof that the subcontractors have, indeed, been paid before advances are made. I ask him, too, whether or not this company produced affidavits or statutory declarations setting out that the subcontractors were paid. When I have those answers, I then have one or two other questions.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could make a few general remarks, and then the hon. member for Lake Centre might wish me to give particulars beyond that. On June 1, 1950, a contract for the construction of 100 houses at Camp Borden was awarded to R. F. Booth Construction Limited, and on June 9 a further contract for 90 housing units was awarded to the same company. These contracts were let on a firm price basis.
In each case a security deposit of $250 per house was taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation from the contractor. This amounted to $25,000 for the 100-house contract and $22,500 for the 90-house contract.


John George Diefenbaker: They were let on what basis? I did not catch that. The minister lowered his voice.


Robert Henry Winters: On a firm price basis. It was provided in the contract that progress payments should be made monthly to the contractor and that from such payments there would be retained a holdback of 10 per cent until the aggregate holdbacks reached $250 per unit. The contractor was required to furnish to Central Mortgage receipts from all subcontractors and suppliers of materials indicating that such subcontractors and suppliers of materials had been paid up to the last previous advance.
In practice a contractor is obliged on making his second and all subsequent progress claims to submit a statement, verified by statutory declaration, to the effect that his accounts with subcontractors and suppliers of materials have been paid. In addition, he attaches the receipts I have mentioned.
Progress payments were made to R. F. Booth Construction Limited from July, 1950, to September, 1951, according to the procedure that I have outlined. In September, 1951, the Booth Construction company was experiencing financial difficulties, and on

September 28 the corporation was obliged to make special arrangements so that the contracting company would meet its payroll account. From this time on until December 5, 1951, the contractor was endeavouring to arrange his affairs so that he might complete his contract, and during that time the corporation made interim advances for the purpose of meeting further payroll accounts.


John George Diefenbaker: How much were they?


Robert Henry Winters: I will have that information later.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right.


Robert Henry Winters: On December 5, 1951, the contractor was obliged to discontinue operations on both contracts and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation took over the projects to make arrangements for the completion of construction.
At the time of the take-over of the contracts by the corporation there was about $105,000 remaining in the contract accounts. In addition, the corporation held the security deposits and the holdbacks. These totalled approximately $95,000. The cost to complete the contract was in excess of the total amount remaining in the contracts, plus security deposits and holdbacks. The overrun amounted to approximately $21,000.
R. F. Booth Construction Limited, the contractor, and Booth Equipment and Supply Company Limited, an allied firm, took advan-take of the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act, with a view to getting their affairs in order.
In March, 1952, Central Mortgage received a copy of an auditor's report as at January 31, 1952, relating to the two companies. This report sets forth a list of creditors of the construction company under the following headings:
Accounts payable-trade	(unsecured),
total	 $73,787.95
Creditors preferred as to special banking
arrangements	 8,582.60
Total trade accounts	 $82,370.55
Accounts payable-subcontractors (unsecured)	 $36,716.13
Creditors preferred as to special banking
arrangements	 6,658.45
Total subcontractors	 $43,374.58
There is no indication in these statements as to whether the trade accounts or the subcontractors' accounts relate to the contracts with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, nor is there any indication as to what has happened to these accounts since January, 1952.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item
carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister now answer the particular questions that I asked? Will he read into the record that portion of the contract that deals with progress reports and the need of supplying the statutory declaration setting out that the amounts in fact have been paid?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not a copy of the actual contract with me.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the officers have a copy of the ordinary contract that is used, because the contracts are all the same with the exception of the fact that the names of the contractors will be different. Have the minister's officials none of those contracts or no duplicate forms?


Robert Henry Winters: Not with us at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is a strange thing, but these contracts are difficult to get hold of. We found that situation in another case. On this occasion, however, we have a summary from the minister stating that statutory declarations are required.


Robert Henry Winters: It will not be difficult to get hold of. I shall be glad to see that my hon. friend gets it. I simply do not have it at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will produce it after the lunch hour and let the committee have it, that will be satisfactory. These houses have all been completed since that time, have they?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, sir.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Booth Construction company been receiving any other contracts since 1951?


Robert Henry Winters: Not from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Then in so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned, the total amount of loss was $21,000?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: Were there available on the premises considerable quantities of plumbing equipment and other building equipment that was taken over by the contracting firm which took the place of Booth Construction company?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I understand that when the difficulty became apparent,
14, 1953
Supply-Resources and Development the people who had supplies on the premises removed them.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly we had better clarify that matter. Is it not a fact that the suppliers who had supplies there on consignment removed them but that those who had supplies there that were not on consignment were denied the right to remove them?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the value of the goods, wares, merchandise, plumbing equipment and the like on the premises that had not yet been used in any way at the time that Booth Construction company ceased operations? I understand that the department has those figures on hand and, indeed, has them summarized as to amounts.


Robert Henry Winters: There again, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member had given me notice, I could have had those figures. But I have not got them available at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Has not the department those figures?


Robert Henry Winters: I will look into that matter, Mr. Chairman. I will see whether that information is available.


John George Diefenbaker: If the item could be allowed to stand and the information as to those two matters that I have referred to could be produced, it might clarify this situation.
I now come to the next question. In view of the fact that in this case, as in others, innocent suppliers of goods, merchandise and services to government contractors have, in the last three or four years, been suffering losses, has any change been made or has any change been suggested in the form of contract in order to protect these individuals who have no right to file mechanics' liens or to take other measures to protect themselves, except, of course, the right to take action? Is any change to be made so that subcontractors and suppliers will not find themselves mulcted on the one hand by the actions of the contractor or, on the other hand, denied compensation by the corporation which has taken over their goods, their wares and their merchandise and utilized them for the purposes for which they were intended to be used, but without payment being made? What is being done to seal up this apparent unfairness that permits of grave injustices? According to the minister's figures, the amount owing in the forms that were put in the possession of the corporation was approximately $126,000. That is a tremendous amount of money for subcontractors to lose. Even in the face of that material being
5364	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development taken over by the government, and of the moneys that were in the hands of the government by way of holdback as security, there was a loss suffered of $21,000.
According to the figures I had, the subcontractors had owing to them $145,333. There is not much difference between that and the figure admitted by the minister, but I do feel that something must be done to protect the subcontractors. They have no way to protect themselves other than to be assured that the accounts will not be paid to the contractor until the subcontractors' accounts have been settled. I am not going to labour this any more. Things like these are serious in their effect. They would not happen in private business because the suppliers would be able to protect themselves in the ordinary legal way.
Surely the time has come not only for a holdback but also for a performance bond. It is the only way in which the subcontractor can be protected. The holdbacks are proven to be inadequate. A performance bond would give protection. It might result in a little extra cost of construction in order to cover the amount of the bond, but it would ensure that justice was done. The minister has already given his assurance that these documents I have asked for will be produced this afternoon.
I am not going to pursue it any further. These are the kinds of things that have to be brought to the attention of the house and the country to the end that the various departments of government will make changes. Unless these changes are made we shall find ourselves in the position where no reputable businessman will be able to deal with government contracts.


Robert Henry Winters: I certainly do not want to labour this question. I realize the very difficult position here for subcontractors who have not been paid by the prime contractor. It is very difficult to work out any arrangement that will prevent that. There are certain elements about it which make it very hard for the government to deal behind the prime contractor. To the extent that it is possible, a very good attempt has been made to do it. As my hon. friend knows, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does require periodic statements from the prime contractor to the effect that the subcontractors have been paid, together with receipts of such transactions. But when one starts talking about subcontractors we must be prepared to consider too the field beyond the subcontractor, because there are very few major subcontractors who do not in turn have 

subcontracts. There are so many ramifications that if the government or the prime contractor undertakes to protect everybody the whole system of tendering and contracting is upset and rendered ineffective. I state that simply to show that it is a very difficult matter and at the same time to indicate that it is a problem to which consideration has been given and to which consideration will continue to be given.


John George Diefenbaker: Have there been other cases in the housing corporation in the last three years of defaults being made as in connection with those subcontractors?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, there have been several other instances.


John George Diefenbaker: How many different cases have arisen in the last two years, and what is the total amount of the default?


Robert Henry Winters: As I recall it, and this is subject to correction, there are three other instances. The total amount I do not have before me.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the amount of the claim in each case that has been filed with the department?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not the information.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister furnish that as well? That information must be on file.


Robert Henry Winters: The difficulty is that we may have to go to the regional offices for it. It is available.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought everything was concentrated here since the big building was erected.


Robert Henry Winters: It is a very well administered organization.


George Harris Hees: Use part of that dance floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the discussion was switched away from the new head office building of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there were several matters on which I wished to ask the minister questions. Since the building was completed-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The discussion with regard to the building which the hon. member has just mentioned terminated some few minutes ago, and by agreement of the committee of supply we are now dealing with the specific items which were left over, namely, 408, 541, 727 and 763.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, there is no such agreement. The hon. member for Lake Centre raised this other matter and went on to that. I did not know what he was raising.

I have several other matters to ask the minister questions about. There was not any agreement to terminate the discussion that was going on.


Robert Henry Winters: On the point of order, I understood there was. I understood we were dealing with this matter of the building of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by indulgence of the committee, because none of the items before the committee now would appropriately cover the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation building; and once we had left that subject I understood we were going to apply ourselves to the items before the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I certainly did not so understand. Nothing was made clear to the committee on that. I do not propose to go into the matter at great length, but there are several matters about which I wish to seek information.


William Alfred Robinson: The chairman of the committee of the whole was in the chair some few minutes ago when the discussion as to the building of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation took place. I understood that discussion on that question was terminated by agreement of the committee, and the hon. member for Lake Centre immediately rose after item 408 was called and commenced a discussion on that item which I found perfectly in order. I must now remind hon. members that we are discussing item 408, and any other discussion is out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, there was no such agreement. There was no termination of the discussion. The hon. member for Lake Centre indicated to the chairman that he had some other matters to discuss. There was no termination of this matter. The hon. member had the floor, and it was not for me to interrupt and say that I had some other matters to raise. I have several questions. They are not lengthy. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, there was no agreement to terminate the discussion at all.


Robert Henry Winters: I ask the hon. member to refer to the opening remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. He will realize that the hon. member for Lake Centre had that understanding.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I certainly did not and I am the one involved in it, because I am the one who had several further questions to ask. And I am raising this matter at this time, completely in line with what the chairman of the committee told me a month ago when I raised this matter in connection with the bill concerning amendment of the housing act. He told me to 68108-3391
Supply-Resources and Development bring it up under the estimates for this department. I am not going to be long, but I do assert my right to ask these questions.


Howard Charles Green: May I say a word? I think the chairman made a suggestion, rather than a ruling. He said-
Mr. V/iniers: It is out of order, in any event.


Howard Charles Green: He said there had been extensive discussion and that perhaps we should co-operate as we did last night. I think there was no such ruling; it was only a suggestion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And might I add that certainly I did not understand what has been suggested. Surely on the basis of a misunderstanding you do not want to close off this discussion.
The Depuiy Chairman: I was in the chamber and heard the discussion to which I referred previously. I can only rule in accordance with my interpretation of that discussion. If hon. members will read Hansard tomorrow they will find, as has been indicated by the Minister of Resources and Development, that certainly in the mind of the hon. member for Lake Centre, in the minds of other members and of myself, the general discussion which had been taking place had terminated, and that we had reached the specific items in this department.
I cannot allow any further general discussion. I must limit the discussion to item 408, unless the hon. member has unanimous consent of the committee to proceed. Has he unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hear some people over yonder saying no. I hope they realize what they are saying. This discussion has been proceeding in an atmosphere of co-operation. I hope they are not going to make it difficult to continue that co-operation.
I have three matters about which I am entitled to ask some questions. A ruling has been made against me on a point of order. I cannot follow that ruling. I certainly would have to challenge any such ruling. What it is suggested was said certainly was not audible down in this part of the chamber. At best there has been a serious misunderstanding.
I do not think the committee is going to make the best progress by trying to proceed in an atmosphere in which there are rulings to stifle discussion. That is not the way to make headway with these estimates. I have three matters about which I wish to

Supply-Resources and Development ask some questions. It would have been all over if this question of privilege had not been raised. That is the situation. Can we have co-operation or can we not have it?


George Harris Hees: I was sitting right behind the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I was paying close attention to what he said. I did not hear him say anything to the effect that we were moving on to the items. It is my understanding that we are on the same item that was before the committee when the hon. member for Eglinton spoke earlier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Am I to have permission to ask these questions?


Howard Charles Green: If you want to get the house closed you had better not be so tough.


Hughes Cleaver: Co-operation is not a oneway street. It has to come from both sides.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall item 408 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it will not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I rise on a point of privilege in relation to this matter-and I hope hon. members will not accuse me of being on both sides. I have listened closely to the discussion this morning with respect to the alleged understanding, and to the ruling from the chair.
It seems to me that, technically speaking, the ruling from the chair is perfectly correct. But it also seems to me that we have wandered quite a bit this morning, and that it might be the best solution to the whole matter if we could let the hon. member for Eglinton have the next five minutes to ask his three questions. I appeal to the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Vancouver -Quadra not to put this matter on the basis of a threat to the other side. Let us get back to that fairly co-operative procedure we had before. I think the chairman was perfectly right in ruling that we should stick to the item, but I appeal to hon. members on both sides of the house to let the hon. member for Eglinton have five minutes.


Hughes Cleaver: Five minutes, then.


William Alfred Robinson: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Changed your mind, eh?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Since the construction of this building, what has been the experience of the corporation with respect to the cellar? Has there been any flooding in the cellar? If so, what has been the result?


Robert Henry Winters: There was no flooding of the cellar.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or of any other part of the building?


Robert Henry Winters: There was some seepage through one of the walls-the north wall of the building. There was a small amount of seepage, but that has been corrected. There has been no flooding. And I know of no other instance of seepage or dampness of any kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has it affected the operation of the heating unit in the building?


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that it has not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is all there was to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
727. 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 during the fiscal year 1952-53 in respect of: (a) Preliminary expenses incurred under enabling agreements with provincial governments, $5,840; (b) loss on housing project operation during the fiscal year 1952-53,, $5,636-$11,476.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would deal with items 727 and 763 at the same time, because both relate to putting money back into the special account with respect to section 35 of the act. Could he explain this procedure and tell us what progress is being made across the country under this section of the act?


Robert Henry Winters: The arrangement under section 35 for operations on dominion-provincial partnership programs requires that the fund of $50 million be reimbursed as parliament has the opportunity to vote money in respect of expenditures made during the previous year. Vote 727 is for the purpose of reimbursing the fund for expenditures made in investigating three projects, one at Hamilton, one at Long Branch and the third at Sudbury. That is in the amount of $5,840. They are preliminary investigations.
Then paragraph (b) in the item deals with the loss on housing project operations during the fiscal year 1952-53, in the amount of $5,636. This was in respect of a subsidized housing project in St. John's, Newfoundland.
The hon. member asked if I would give him the details concerning item 763, and outline the progress to date under section 35. The section is operating reasonably well considering the difficulties, and the fact that it requires participation at municipal, provincial and federal levels. Projects have gone forward in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. There has been a land assembly project completed at Trail, and we are on the verge of a housing development at Little Mountain, in Vancouver. Then, of course,

there is a housing project completed under section 35, at Prince Rupert.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there not one pending in Manitoba?


Robert Henry Winters: There is one under discussion in Manitoba in the city of Winnipeg. It is a relatively large one, but no formal proposal for going ahead with it has yet come to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the reason for the delay?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that it still has to be dealt with by the ratepayers of the city of Winnipeg.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, did you call item 541?


William Alfred Robinson: Item 541 is carried.
*Mr. Browne (St. John's West): There was a lot of noise at the time. I should like to ask the minister a question regarding the housing project at Gander. He speaks of housing projects. Can he tell me how many there are and what the value of them is?


Robert Henry Winters: The total vote of $3,300,000 is made up of $1,500,000 for Fraserview, which is in Vancouver, $200,000 for sundry completion costs on 1949 veterans' projects, $550,000 for permanent improvement to war workers' houses, and $400,000 for 50 houses at Gander, Newfoundland. That is the carryover as of March 31, 1953. In the 1953 program there are an additional 50 houses at Gander, and the amount for them is $650,000, making a total of $3,300,000.


William Joseph Browne: The $400,000 is a part payment towards the total cost.


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we may get back to item 727, can the minister say what is the total number of houses that have been built on a subsidized rental basis under the provisions of section 35 of the act?


Robert Henry Winters: There are 1,287 subsidized units.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to make the brief comment that to me that figure indicates that section 35 pays not much more than lip service to the principle of subsidized housing for those whose income makes it impossible for them to pay high rents.


Robert Henry Winters: The federal government is willing.
Supply-Resources and Development


Stanley Howard Knowles: The federal government is willing to the extent of 75 per cent of the capital cost of these projects.


Robert Henry Winters: And the operation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but the federal government does not realize that it is much easier for it to get the 75 per cent than it is for the provinces to get their 25 per cent.


Robert Henry Winters: It is the same taxpayers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister had better not reopen the question as to what the government has done to these same taxpayers across the country. I submit that this is evidence of the fact that we have a long way to go in recognizing the social nature of the housing problem and the urgent need of an adequate program of subsidized low rental housing. I hope that after the election of August 10 is over we will have a government on that side of the house that believes in the importance of housing to the Canadian people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We won't, if you are there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
763. 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 1952-53, $9,000,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish the minister would give some further information about the restoration of this sum. The item refers to the restoration of the special account in section 35. Would he give some further explanation and relate it to the amount of $9 million.


Robert Henry Winters: It is just that section 35 of the National Housing Act sets up a statutory fund of $50 million with the provision that as moneys are spent against that $50 million they are to be returned to the fund by vote of parliament. This $9 million is to cover operations under section 35 and expenditures made against that fund during the past fiscal year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the actual amount of the expenditures made in the fiscal year?


Robert Henry Winters: The actual amount was
approximately $9 million. It is very close to the figure in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister if he will bring in the answers for the hon. member for Lake Centre?


Robert Henry Winters: I will do that.
5368	HOUSE OF
Supply-Resources and Development [Later:]


Robert Henry Winters: I thank the committee for this opportunity to give this information. The hon. member for Lake Centre asked that I supply certain information arising from the discussion that took place on item 408.
The hon. member asks the amount of interim advances to the Booth Construction Company Limited for the purpose of the meeting of payroll accounts between the time there was first indication of financial difficulty and the time the prime contractor left the job. The answer is $66,479.
The hon. member asks for the wording of that portion of the contract relating to monthly progress payments to the contractor. The wording of the contract is:
Subject to the holdback provisions in this clause stated, cash payments of the value of the work done, approximately estimated from progress measurements, and computed at the price or prices agreed upon or determined under the provisions of this contract, will be made to the contractor monthly, if practicable, on the written certificate of the engineer, stating that the work for or on account of which the certificate is granted has been done, and stating the value of such work completed, as above mentioned, and the said certificate shall be a condition precedent to the right of the contractor to be so paid.
There shall be retained from the amount specified in each certificate a holdback of ten per centum thereof. The contractor agrees to furnish to the company receipts in a form satisfactory to the company from all subcontractors and suppliers of materials certifying that all work done or materials supplied to the date of the last previous advance have been paid, and upon such receipts being so furnished the said holdback shall be limited to two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) per dwelling unit exclusive of the security deposit in the contract provided for.
The hon. member asks for the value of the materials on site but not put in place at the time the contract was taken over from Booth Construction Limited. The answer is $86,961.22.
Finally, the hon. member asks for details of similar instances where subcontractors and suppliers have not been paid in full by the prime contractor. Although I stated this morning, subject to correction, that there might be three such cases, on examination I find there are but two which are parallel to the case of the Booth Construction Company Limited.
The first took place in Moncton, where the corporation had a contract with Frank Matthews. The contractor encountered difficulties and work ceased. There was owing to subcontractors and suppliers $111,597, of which most but not all of the accounts applied to the work which he was doing for Central Mortgage. From the holdback, security deposit, and final progress payment the creditors received $57,605, involving a loss to them of $53,992. I would emphasize again,


however, that included in the creditors accounts were items not applicable to the contract entered into with Central Mortgage.
The second case involves Massicotte Construction Limited of Montreal who had a contract with Central Mortgage for about $1 million and substantial private contracts in other parts of the province. This contractor found himself unable to carry on and he asked that his creditors take advantage of the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act. The total amount owing to subcontractors and suppliers was $329,076, of which only part was on account of the contract with Central Mortgage. The creditors received 30 cents on the dollar, or $98,722, involving a loss to them of $230,354. I am unable to tell the hon. member what portion of this loss was attributable to the contract with Central Mortgage.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at two o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members will find these votes commencing on page 27 of the blue book, and the details commence at page 217.
162. Departmental administration, $391,601.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister intend to make some preliminary remarks?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He does not trust himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to refer to a matter that was left over this morning. My hon. friend the Minister of Resources and Development was to produce certain information this afternoon. By your leave, sir, it being not yet available, it can be introduced at any time-when the information comes to my hon. friend.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is that agreed?


Robert Henry Winters: That is quite satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. The information is being compiled and I will make it available this day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have only a very few remarks that I intend to make at this time in reference to the Department of Justice. I think, however, that one who was a member of the committee, if for only a matter of a few days when I found it impossible to my great regret to continue on that committee, it would not be amiss if I were to express personally and also on behalf

of the opposition commendation to that committee on amendments to the Criminal Code. It was an outstanding committee. It was an example of the way in which a committee should operate. The committee was composed of men who were well able to discuss the subject under consideration and I think it will remain a model for a very long time to come of the means and methods whereby committees may operate for the benefit of the country and for the preservation of the rule of law.
It is a matter of regret that at this session it has been impossible to deal with the recommendations made by that committee, but the voluminous nature of the bill and the many controversial questions which it would have been necessary to discuss had the bill been brought before the house, demanded that it be set over to the next parliament. I am sure that the work that was done by the committee will be made available to any committee set up in the next parliament. It will be of great assistance and will go a long way toward reducing the time required for further consideration in the committee.
There are some phases of criminal law that cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by that committee in the short time at its disposal. There are many phases of criminal law that are outdated and that will require a job to be done by either parliament or a committee recommending amendments that will have to be made to the Criminal Code in order to bring it up to the present advances in psychology and also to the general philosophy of law and of life itself. However, I do want to say a word for the committee and, at the same time, to say to the minister that his assistance in the committee and the contribution that he made to the commitee were worthy of the high traditions of the office which he occupies.
Having said that, there are one or two matters that I wish to deal with particularly, reserving of course the right to discuss some of the items when they come before the committee. I think one matter deserves special consideration and that is the question of combines investigation. It is a subject that in ever-increasing measure finds itself before parliament, and I think the time has come for a committee similar to the one on criminal law to be set up in order to canvass the whole concept regarding combines.
There are two different viewpoints. There is the American viewpoint which generally is founded on the premise that bigness is of itself inherently bad. There is the British concept that bigness of itself is not necessarily bad and that primarily what has to be considered is not the size of corporations, in the
Supply-Justice
modern world of large corporations, but whether or not the actions they take and their conduct are detrimental to public welfare. Our combines act is a product of judicial decisions, changes made by parliament in a rather haphazard manner, and other changes that are based on the experience of those who administer the act.
It is quite easy to pass legislation, but sometimes it is difficult to carry it into effect.
I have in mind particularly the debates that took place, Mr. Chairman, in December of 1951 when the question of price fixing was before the house. Resale price maintenance was a dangerous course of action, according to the minister, and the government legislation was passed.
At that time, we pointed out that the legislation would be ineffectual unless something was done in order to prevent the practice of loss leaders. I think the events of the last year have proven the correctness of our viewpoint. I understand that the officers in charge of the administration of the combines act have devoted themselves to an endeavour to secure a definition for "loss leader". I think the search has been a lost cause. In order to establish such a definition, as everyone knows, it must cover every possibility within the realm of comprehension, and as such is impossible of attainment.
One of the most interesting things in connection with price fixing was that recently the queen's printer, in the annual catalogue that was issued, stated that the prices that were fixed by the queen's printer were subject to a discount of 25 per cent to those who maintained the price set and fixed by the queen's printer as the resale price. This was an interesting sidelight. One department of government was making it an offence to fix the retail price at which a commodity is to be sold, and another department of government, the queen's printer, by public declaration was averring the need for this power to fix such prices in anticipation and also denying to those who fail to sell at the price fixed the right to secure the reduction or discount. As an aside, it might be suggested that possibly all the departments of government might be made aware of the change in the law and the amendments passed in December, 1952.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure the hon. member does not intend to leave any wrong impression, so perhaps he would accept a few words of correction. We checked, when we saw it, the statement that was put out over the signature of the queen's printer. His purpose was to do something which was entirely in

Supply-Justice
accord with the Combines Investigation Act amendment, namely to fix maximum price and not the minimum price.


John George Diefenbaker: He did not make it clear in the note.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that is right. He wanted to correct what he referred to as an abuse of the way in which certain individuals were obtaining these documents in quantity from the queen's printer, and then selling them at what was regarded as an extortionate profit. The only difficulty was that the language which was used to that end was, at best, obscure and perhaps open to the interpretation which the hon. member for Lake Centre has placed upon it. The intention was certainly not to break the act, nor was there any indication of ignorance of the act.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no intention to evade the act but the words used were such that no other conclusion could be arrived at, save that any resale price must be the price set by the queen's printer; otherwise the discount would not be allowed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But as a maximum, and not a minimum.


John George Diefenbaker: It did not say that in the notice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know that.


John George Diefenbaker: You have to read in the extra words in order to say that. It just shows you how language sometimes has to be interpreted differently from the interpretation the actual words would carry. The reason advanced by the minister, that the queen's printer was afraid that one would make an exorbitant profit from the sale of these documents, is one which, in view of the subject matter of the publication, it is hard to believe is subject to that dangerous possibility.
In connection with the Combines Investigation Act, I should like to mention that I think the minister should explain to the house and the country the results of investigations made by the officials in endeavouring to arrive at the meaning of the expression "loss leader", and also whether any recommendations were made by the officials for the amendment of the Combines Investigation Act in order to cover the situation as it now exists. Without entering into the merits of the matter at all, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra brought to the attention of the house a situation with regard to the sale of cigarettes, and I believe other members have taken similar action. Attention has been drawn to the fact that cigarettes are being sold at prices below the prices paid to the wholesaler in order to 
attract other business. I should like the minister to advise the committee how many prosecutions have taken place under the amendments passed in 1952, which were designed to prevent resale price maintenance.
Another matter comes to mind. Yesterday, for some reason, the minister departed from his usual habit, and he used a tremendous number of words in answering the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to whether or not there were any reports that had not been brought before the house or had not been tabled within the 3 0-day period. One would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member, with his capacity for conciseness, would have been able to answer that question quite simply by saying "no". He used a good many words on that occasion, and when he finished he left the impression that somewhere, somehow, some place there is some report or the result of some investigation wherein action was suggested by the commissioner, which has not been tabled yet.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let me clear up any misapprehension under which the hon. member may be labouring. I think if he will examine the words that I used he will see they are totally incapable of the interpretation he is now placing upon them. May I say that I was under the impression that I made it quite clear-if he should be under any misapprehension in that regard-if I did not make it clear then, I shall make it clear now. There are no reports which are, by the act, required to be published which have not been published, with the exception of one, the existence of which has already been disclosed and which will be duly published within the statutory period which will expire about the 30th of this month.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the wire and cable one?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that is not the wire and cable one. That is a report which, when my hon. friend asked me to identify it, I said I would not identify it; I said that this report would be published within a short time and that it would speak for itself in its entirety as from the date of publication. With that single exception, all other reports which I have received and which require to be published have been published. The only other reports that I have received are those from the director which are of an informal character and which he makes when, having opened under the act an investigation which proves to be groundless, he closes it and tells me-sometimes orally and sometimes in writing-that that investigation led to no end.

Have I made my point? Does my hon. friend understand my language?


John George Diefenbaker: It is perfectly clear. That statement removes any anomalous inferences that might be derived from a reading of my hon. friend's words of yesterday. In connection with publication of reports, I belong to a minority, I know, for the stand I take. I hold no brief for any company or corporation; but throughout the years I have been of the opinion that however beneficial publication may be of suspicious circumstances short of proof, it is not fair that the conclusions or the investigations of any government body should be published before proceedings are taken or have been taken in the courts. I know there are some who say that publication of facts such as these reports bring out, and of revelations that are the consequence of investigation, constitutes a valuable antidote against wrongdoing. Personally it is my belief, and my view has never changed, that it is most detrimental to the rule of law and the maintenance of freedom that a matter short of proof should be published and bruited about without a prosecution taking place. The minister mentioned that he has had several reports which were of investigations that failed to bring forth evidence of wrongdoing and that, as such, he does not feel that they should be identified.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They never have been.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I am saying that he does not feel that they should be identified; and there can be no argument that the course which he has followed is the proper one. In fact, I go further than the view that at present is followed by the branch, namely that without prosecution there should not be publication. No one should be condemned or convicted by a report unless the courts would actually convict upon the evidence brought out by the board of investigation.
That brings me to the investigation of wire and cable. I should like the minister to advise particularly with reference to this investigation, whether the commissioner, Mr. Golden-berg of Montreal, some time ago advised Mr. MacDonald, director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act, that he had completed hearings in connection with the inquiry and investigation, and whether or not an interim report was made in connection with that investigation. My impression was that the investigation was concluded a considerable period of time ago. I ask whether or not a report was made to the director of investigation and research; and also, if such a report was made, whether it has been made available to the minister as yet.
Supply-Justice
The other matters I wish to deal with can be dealt with under their respective heads as the items are called. These are several matters that I think are worthy of serious consideration. The Combines Investigation Act today is not effective in its punishment against wrongdoers. I do not want to see that act used as a club unfairly, but I suggest this to you, Mr. Chairman. When a company or a group of companies have mulcted the public over a long period of time and then are found guilty, the monetary penalty of $10,000, as is the present maximum under the present combines act,-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite wrong in that statement. There is no limit at all under the Combines Investigation Act.


John George Diefenbaker: The Criminal Code liability, then.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is no limit.


John George Diefenbaker: The Criminal Code liability is what?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is no limit at all. I think where my hon. friend has gone wrong is that he is thinking of the fine that was discussed the other day in Toronto in the cases there.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I refer to the recent rubber cases, in Toronto. But I am sure my hon. friend, as one who is familiar with the criminal law, is aware of the principle that where the law has been amended taking away the ceiling that formerly existed and making the penalty without limit at all, an offence which was committed when the law imposed a ceiling-


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -can only be punished by the law as it stood at the time when the offence was committed-


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution may have been launched after the statute was amended.


John George Diefenbaker: I was coming to that. I know what my hon. friend is saying. He is saying that 'Vhen the offence took place, the penalty was $10,000.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wanted to correct my hon. friend. My hon. friend made the bald and categorical statement that there was a ceiling of $10,000 upon these penalties.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.

Supply-Justice


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is not quite correct. There is no ceiling whatsoever at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend says that I made a bald statement. If I did so, it was incorrect. What I am coming to is this. As to. the case in the city of Toronto where there had been wrongdoing over a period of time, a maximum penalty of $10,000 was not in keeping with the offence that was committed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I entirely agree.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the point I was making.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the reason we amended the act.


John George Diefenbaker: I am coming to that matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend was here when we amended the act.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And he should be familiar with the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I am coming to that. There is no question about that. I am not going to argue with my hon. friend over that point. The penalty was totally out of keeping with the offence committed. Indeed, if my recollection is correct, some of the offences that were committed continued beyond the time or after the time of the amendment. My hon. friend may look that point up and find that I am correct in that regard, namely that some of the offences continued following the period in which the change in the law was made. Personally, I feel that, if the Combines Investigation Act is to be made effective, penalties in keeping with the crime will have to be brought into effect; that is, penalties that will penalize seriously enough to interfere with the gains that can be secured to directors who connive and contribute. Penalties are provided today. These penalties should consist of mandatory sentences of imprisonment; for where there is wrongdoing, such as has been revealed in some recent cases, it should be punished to the extreme limit. After all,^ the position of the state must be not to interfere with proper and fair competition but to make sure that there is free and uncontrolled competition. Otherwise, private enterprise cannot survive. There is only one way in which free enterprise operates and that is through equality of opportunity for the producer or the consumer. In effect, that is the essence of the combines legislation.

When wrongdoing is established, then amendments must be made to ensure that those who actively, or passively, if you like, act as directors shall not escape unscathed from a prison sentence. A fine is a poor substitute as a punishment for wrongdoing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask a question? A poor substitute for what?


John George Diefenbaker: A substitute for serious wrongdoing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says that a fine is a poor substitute for a punishment.


John George Diefenbaker: For straight imprisonment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Can you imprison a corporation?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not talking about imprisoning a corporation; I am talking about the directors. It should be mandatory where a director acquiesces, either directly, or passively, by standing by, knowing that wrongdoing is taking place. The possibility of a fine being imposed is no deterrent to wrongdoing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether I might reply to one or two points while they are fresh in the minds of the committee members. To begin with, I want to express my appreciation of and gratification at the complimentary remarks which the hon. member made concerning the special committee that considered Bill No. 93, respecting the criminal law. I think I can do that without immodesty, because although I was a member of the committee I really attended in my capacity of minister as an assistant, as it were, rather than as a member of the committee itself.
Everything the hon. member for Lake Centre has said about the committee is a compliment very well deserved by its members. During a period of some eight years I had the experience of being a member of a government which was set up for the express purpose of being non-partisan, and during five or six years I was the head of that government, so that I have some experience in working with members of other parties. But I can truthfully say that in all my public experience I never worked with a group of men on any committee or in any parliamentary connection who addressed themselves to the problem in hand with a greater lack of partisanship or a greater objectivity and a greater diligence than the members of the Criminal Code committee.
We had before us a measure which had been originally compiled by a very competent

royal commission, many of the members of which were amongst the most eminent criminal lawyers in Canada. Its product went to the other place. A subcommittee of the banking and commerce committee of that other place, consisting of Senators Hayden, Farris and Roebuck, each of whom is a very eminent counsel in his own right, studied the question. They made a large number of amendments; thus there was a great temptation, when it came before the House of Commons committee, to take the bill as having received careful consideration by those who had dealt with it before, and to exercise our own judgment concerning it scarcely at all.
That is diametrically opposite to the treatment which was given to it by the House of Commons committee. We heard a large number of delegations; we received a large number of briefs. These briefs were all carefully digested. Every substantial point that was raised in them was earmarked against the section of the bill to which it referred. As that section of the bill was called it was discussed in the light of the points which had been made in these briefs, whether or not anyone had appeared to make a personal presentation in support of his brief. The result has been, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has indicated on a previous occasion, that we have a bill which could be quite safely introduced at another session of parliament without the necessity of hearing further representations. And in relation to a task as large as this one is, it would be only by that method that we could ever get it through within the compass of a single parliamentary session.
With regard to the Combines Investigation Act, my hon. friend says he thinks that a committee should be set up to consider the terms of this act and the changes or amendments that might be made to it. I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend. As he will recall, it is less than two years ago since we had a long debate in this house concerning the report of another highly competent commission, the MacQuarrie committee. That committee had discharged ably the very task that the hon. member is now recommending should be assigned again to a parliamentary committee or some other royal commission. The MacQuarrie committee conducted the first complete inquiry made into the Combines Investigation Act, and recommended the first complete overhaul which it has had since it was first passed in 1923. And while I would not suggest for a moment that we should go on for another period of more than a quarter of a century without having another thorough examination of this act, I do not think it is necessary
Supply-Justice
to do so within two years after the MacQuarrie report was implemented.
My hon. friend made reference to the wire and cable inquiry. As I think he himself indicated, this inquiry was conducted by Mr. Carl Goldenberg, Q.C., of Montreal. He was appointed a special commissioner, and my hon. friend rather insinuated in his remarks that perhaps some report concerning that matter had been made to me, and he wanted to know what the standing of the matter was. My information is that Mr. Goldenberg held the final hearing fairly recently, at which the parties concerned exercised their right to be heard, and they were heard in February last. Since that time Mr. Goldenberg has been engaged in the preparation of his report, which we hope to receive about September of this year, and which of course will be considered by Mr. MacDonald and passed on to the restrictive trade practices commission in due course, if that seems to be the proper thing to do. It will not be until after the restrictive trade practices commission has considered it that it will come, if it does come at that time, to the minister. There is one other point that my hon. friend made, and that is that he thought we should examine our own statute in the light of the practice in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I did not say that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says no. I was not going to suggest that we should examine it in the light of practice in the United States with a view to borrowing what the United States had done, but to examine it in the light of United States legislation-as I understood my hon. friend- with a view to not borrowing the United States principle, as he announced it, of saying that mere bigness was an offence in itself.
I would point out to my hon. friend-and I am not suggesting he is of this view-but many people are, and quite erroneously so, of the view that in Canada we have copied the United States in some parts of our legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad to see my hon. friend shaking his head in the negative, because he and I are in agreement on this point. He knows, I am sure-as we all do in the House of Commons-that it would have been impossible for us to have copied the United States; because our original legislation, forming part of the criminal law of the country at that time, was passed a year before the earliest United States federal legislation, and therefore obviously could not have been based upon the United States legislation.

Supply-Justice
Then he raised one other matter in connection with loss leaders, and he wanted me to report to the house as to what conclusions had been reached in that investigation. The investigation is by no means complete, and will not be complete for some considerable time. I would hope that very likely we would be able to report the results of that by the time of the next parliament; but at the present time we have no report. And there has been, I suggest, no indication upon the part of the members of the commission, or of myself, at any time, that the report to which the hon. member has referred would be available within this present time.


John George Diefenbaker: When did the investigation begin, with a view to ascertaining whether or not loss leaders could be defined? I understand that various groups and bodies were communicated with in order to ascertain what they might suggest as to the definition of a loss leader-and it all turned out to be a lost cause.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I accept my hon. friend's epigram as to the investigation in respect of loss leaders turning out to be a lost cause. It is a little premature, though, because we have not yet completed the investigation. And if I understood his argument correctly, I thought he himself was indicating or, shall I say, despairing of its being anything other than a lost cause; because the whole tenor of his argument was to the effect that it was impossible to define a loss leader.
I will agree that the experience of the MacQuarrie committee, the witnesses who appeared before that committee, and the witness who appeared before the parliamentary committee which was considering amendments to the Combines Investigation Act based upon the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee, all indicated that there was a very genuine and a very great difficulty in defining a loss leader.
And of course, if we are going to deal with a subject of that sort, one of the first essentials is that we should have an accurate knowledge of what it is we are dealing with. That is the first essential if we are to make any progress.
The hon. member has asked when the investigation began. It began in November of 1952, just about the time the legislation was coming before the house. And it has continued actively from that time until the present in the form of inquiries by the director seeking the views of trade organizations in the retail and wholesale distributing trades, certain associations in specific industrial groups, and general business associations such as the Canadian Manufacturers Association

and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as well as certain groups consisting of departmental stores, co-operative associations, chain stores and the like, and consumer groups which would include farm and labour groups. The compilation of the views of all these various concerns, to say nothing of the reaching of conclusions based upon that compilation, is a heavy task, one which as yet has been by no means completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister mean that it was in November, 1951, that this investigation started?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: November, 1952.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The legislation was passed in June of 1952.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, yes; my hon. friend is quite right when he says that. I was asked the question as to when it started, and I am now giving the date upon which it did start.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My only reason for the interjection was that the minister had said that it was at the time the legislation was coming before the house. The legislation had been passed in the previous session.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of raising a serious problem with which the municipalities in Manitoba are faced.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if my hon.
friend would permit the minister to complete his statement. There was one other question he did not answer, as to how many prosecutions had taken place since December, 1951, under the legislation covering retail price maintenance.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, what I was going to suggest is this, in relation to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Selkirk, that I believe we would make for more orderly progress in committee if we were to discuss the various items in this department as they are called, item by item. For instance, if my hon. friend from Selkirk is going to refer to penitentiaries-


William Scottie Bryce: No, I am not. I will later on, but not just now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Could we go through the estimates item by item? I would be very glad to discuss each one as it is called. I do suggest however that we would make better progress if we were to follow that procedure. Otherwise we will be jumping from one subject to another.


John George Diefenbaker: I think it is only fair that the hon. member for Selkirk should be per-

mitted to proceed, because I believe I interrupted him when I asked the minister for an answer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am quite agreeable that the hon. member for Selkirk should proceed. I am only suggesting that after we have disposed of the matters to which he refers we might begin the orderly process of considering each item separately.


Howard Charles Green: There are one or two matters I wish to deal with before we consider the separate items.


William Scottie Bryce: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall begin again. Let me take this opportunity, when the minister's estimates are before the house, to bring up a serious matter facing the municipalities in Manitoba in which there are airfields or military camps. Perhaps I would save the time of the committee if I were to quote an editorial from the Winnipeg Tribune of Thursday, May 7. Before I begin reading I should explain that I had asked for the correspondence that had passed between the town of Gimli and the Minister of Justice. The article states:
An interesting exchange of letters has taken place between the town of Gimli and Justice Minister Garson.
Last year several members of the R.C.A.F. stationed at Gimli were sentenced to prison. Their families applied to the town for relief. Gimli authorities did not feel that local taxpayers should be asked to pay the shot for this assistance. They contended that although the families had been there long enough to become "residents" under the letter of the law, they should not be regarded as permanent citizens.
The town of Gimli therefore wrote to Mr. Garson asking that the dominion government be financially responsible for the relief payments and that Ottawa acknowledge responsibility for those military dependents. In reply Mr. Garson has told Gimli that the federal government could not admit this responsibility and that the town would have to foot the relief bill. He said that Ottawa could not consider itself responsible for military dependents in the case any more than they could give help to dependents of civilian employees. He added that the town was benefited as a result of the R.C.A.F. station being nearby.
This last comment seems to be beside the point. But the case could be of interest not only to other municipalities near training centres and stations of the armed services but to the provincial government as well. It should be borne in mind that the Manitoba government has accepted a measure of responsibility for relief costs. The provincial government has agreed to pay 60 per cent of the cost of relief above a certain stipulated minimum. The rest is paid by the municipalities. The municipalities and the province have long contended that the dominion government should shoulder the relief burden. Ottawa authorities implicitly acknowledged that relief costs should be their responsibility in their offer to the provinces in 1945.
The reply to Mr. Garson should be of course that the federal government should be responsible for these military dependents and for civilian cases as
Supply-Justice
well. Provincial authorities should join with the town of Gimli in trying to convince Mr. Garson and his cabinet colleagues that relief costs should properly be borne by the dominion government.
Taking the correspondence that has been exchanged between the town of Gimli and the minister, I will not read all of the letter of the town of December 11, 1952, but I should like to point out that the town draws attention to this fact:
Recently several airmen from the Gimli airport were convicted by a police magistrate for various crimes involving the theft of goods from government stores and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment from five to nine months. We understand that further charges of a similar nature are being laid and also that some who have already been charged are awaiting trial in higher courts. In other words, there is the possibility of this growing and involving many men and probably some for comparatively long terms.
Our concern is chiefly for the wives and families of these men so convicted. Under existing legislation it would appear that, if they have lived here long enough to have gained residence, that they become wards of the town. As these men were in Her Majesty's service when convicted it would seem that there should be some dominion or provincial responsibility for those who were depending on them and are now left destitute by this action.
I do not need to read any more of that letter because that makes the point. But in the minister's reply of February 5, 1953, he drew the attention of the town of Gimli to the fact that he had received a letter from the Department of National Defence and went on to say:
That department has now indicated that it does not consider that the dependents of convicted service personnel are in a different position from that of the employees of a civilian firm who are brought into a community to work for their employer and to bring their dependents with them. Where the employees in question are sentenced to imprisonment the employer does not make special provision for the maintenance of the dependents.
Then there is this further paragraph:
The department points out that the location of an air force station or other military establishment of a considerable size such as that at Gimli results in substantial benefits to the community in question in the form of increased trade by local merchants, the fulfilling of housing requirements and the provision of other services. Service personnel and their dependents who reside in a community are generally accepted as ordinary citizens and the department considers that they should be treated as such under all circumstances.
What the minister does not take into consideration is that when an airfield, air training base or other military establishment is set up no taxes are paid. If a manufacturing concern moves into a town it pays taxes and the people who work for the manufacturer pay taxes. The people who work for the foundry or other manufacturing concern that is established in a town buy their goods and services in the town. People in the air force

Supply-Justice
or army can buy anything they want in the canteen cheaper than it can be bought in any town in Manitoba. Therefore I do not think it is a fair comparison for the minister to say that it is just like another business. It is not like another business at all. It is something entirely different. The minister went on to say in his letter:
The department points out, however, that under the present law, where military personnel are sentenced to imprisonment and are released from the force as a result thereof, which is usually the case, the dependents may be issued with second class transportation and the necessary meal tickets for the journey to the place in Canada indicated by the serviceman as being his place of residence at the time of enrolment in the force.
If they leave Gimli they may go to the minister's constituency of Marquette and become a burden on that municipality.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then something will happen.


William Scottie Bryce: No, I do not say that. I do not want to labour the point, but the situation is not fair and it should be corrected.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I may deal with these points as they are raised I think it may help. I deal with this present point with some embarrassment in that actually it is a matter which comes under other departments of government than my own. I think the reason for my having been written to in this connection was that I am the only minister from Manitoba. But if I might discuss this principle of fairness, which the hon. gentleman who is noted for his fairness has just enunciated, and venture quite modestly to disagree with him on the principle of fairness, I would put it in this way.
The editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune refers to the proposed green book settlement of 1945. It is true the dominion government of that day, as part of an over-all financial settlement between itself and the provincial governments represented at that conference, did indicate its willingness to take over what was then and is still now the responsibility of the provinces, namely, the payment of relief. It is also true that at that conference the province of Manitoba, which I had then the honour to represent, was the only province which, immediately the green book proposal was made, said Yes, we will accept this proposal. If all the provinces had accepted the proposal the point that my hon. friend is making today would not have arisen, and I think that the provinces as a whole would perhaps have been in a better position than they are at the present time. But they did not accept the proposal; they turned it down. After further negotiations a new proposal was made which took the form of the tax agreements which now exist between

the nine provinces of Canada and the dominion under which, so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, in return for revenue sources which for that province at their peak produced $5-5 million, the province in this present year receives about $24 million in payments from the dominion treasury-upon the understanding that the provinces continue to be responsible for relief.
I am not suggesting that the difference between these two figures of $5-5 million and $24 million is an exact measure of the benefit to the Manitoba treasury of this tax agreement. But there is no doubt that the financial benefit to the Manitoba treasury is a very substantial one which has enabled the provincial government of Manitoba only recently to increase by $3-8 million the substantial benefits which it was already paying to Manitoba municipalities.
All of these arrangements were entered into in the light of the fact that in 1945 a proposal had been made to take over unemployment relief as a part of an over-all financial deal. It was rejected by the provinces and then these new tax agreements were entered into, which left the relief situation in the position in which it then stood and now stands. That being so-I know my hon. friend is fair-and I know of no fairer man in this house-how can he say that an arrangement which is enormously advantageous to the provinces in certain cases-and it is certainly so in the case of Manitoba-provides that the dominion government should assume the cost of relief, when it provides such thing.
My hon. friend says there is an inequity because when a military camp or an airport comes along taxes are not paid. Well, my hon. friend should know, because he was a member for that constituency at one time, that the airport at Gimli is not situated within the town of Gimli-it is the town of Gimli we are talking about-and no other municipality. He should also know that his other statement is wrong regarding these dependents of airmen who were convicted of offences, and that is the reason this whole question arises. When these dependents become tenants in the town of Gimli they pay taxes in their rent.
I am sure that my hon. friend knows enough of economics to know that in rent there is included the carrying charges of the taxes against the premises. It goes right to the landlord and from the landlord to the municipality. The whole question here is whether, in view of the present arrangements between the provinces and the federal

government-an arrangement into which they have freely entered-the burden of relief should in addition to and in spite of these arrangements be passed over to the federal government.
I am quite prepared to admit that from the standpoint of an over-all arrangement for the nation as a whole quite a good case can be made out for having relief handled in that way. But, when a number of governments have freely entered into an existing arrangement, while you may argue in the abstract that some other national arrangement is preferable, yet the governments concerned must conclude a bargain to that effect, and sign an agreement before they are bound. The fact of the matter is that the present agreements were signed only last year and, if I remember correctly, they have five years to run. If my hon. friend will permit me to say so, I do not think while those agreements are running it is fair for him to say that it is not fair for the dominion government to expect to carry on under an agreement which it has reached with the provinces-an agreement under which the province of my hon. friend and myself is receiving very large benefits.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not wish to debate the matter further because I have known the minister a very long time and I know enough not to get up against a lawyer when it comes to a debate. When you talk in a legal frame of mind you can make black look white.
I want to say, and I think the minister will still think I am fair, that I do not see it the way he sees it. In the tax agreement made with Manitoba in 1947 the federal government agreed to look after its own relief. Manitoba did not make any contract to take the discards of the army and the discards of the air force and feed them. That is what you are asking Gimli to do and that is what you are asking Macdonald to do, and other places. You throw them out and it does not matter whether you give them a railway ticket to go somewhere else or not, they are going to be dropped on somebody. You or the Minister of National Defence have taken the best out of them and do not want them any more. You should not ask the municipalities, which are hard up enough, to pay that money out.
I have said all that I am going to say but I do not think it is fair. The Department of National Defence should look after them and get them rehabilitated somewhere and not leave them in Gimli. Gimli has even had to pay hospital bills and so on for them. These people are there because the services put them there and there is no other reason.
Supply-Justice
They are not there because they wanted to live in Gimli.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this moment on the first item of the minister's estimates to bring to his attention something which he might first regard as something of a trivial nature. The people who may be affected of course would not consider it to be trivial. I might say that I have been asked by the member for Battle River to bring the matter to the minister's attention because the hon member for Battle River is unable to be in the chamber at the present time. We are expecting to prorogue soon and members are trying to wind up other business.
I am going to speak in respect of measures that might be taken towards prosecutions for what might be termed very unfair business practices. I will give the minister an example of what I mean and he will be perhaps then more readily and properly able to answer the question. I have in my hand an article which happens to be a belt that a man uses to hold up his trousers.


An hon. Member:: It is a good idea.


Ernest George Hansell: When the belt breaks the result is liable to be catastrophic. The purchaser of this belt went into a store one day-and it happened to be in the constituency of Battle River although I suppose the same thing might have happened in almost any constituency-and he picked up a belt and noticed on the label on the package the words "genuine cowhide". He took the belt, looked at it and found stamped inside the belt "genuine cowhide". He thought, "Well, that is pretty good," and he bought the belt. I do not know whether it happened the first time he buckled the belt up but anyway the belt broke. On examining the belt he found it was not cowhide at all and that it was just nothing but paper. He had bought a paper belt. Now, I am going to send this over to the minister. He had better not wear it or he may know something about an embarrassing moment. I am going to send it over to him, and he can read on the label "genuine cowhide", and he can read the lettering stamped on the belt "genuine cowhide". He can see the place where the belt broke, and it is nothing but paper.
I may tell him the rest of the story. The gentleman who bought this belt went back to his dealer and said, "Here, I thought this was a genuine cowhide belt; it says so on the package and it says so on the belt." The manager of the store looked at it and said, "That is bad." He looked at the rest of his stock and found that they were the same type of belt, so he sent the whole shipment back to the wholesaler, which of course was the

Supply-Justice
proper thing to do. All we wish to say is the manufacturer had no right to sell goods misrepresented such as that is, and in our opinion a manufacturer who does that should be prosecuted. I should like the minister to answer two questions. First, what is the position of the manufacturer and the wholesaler in a case of this kind? Secondly, what procedure should an individual take? I see the minister is burning the end of the belt.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is paper, all right.


Ernest George Hansell: If the minister can light it, and it flares up like that, it must be paper. You cannot light solid leather with a match. What is the position of the manufacturer and wholesaler in a case like that? What is the procedure that should be taken when an individual buys a product like that? The individual might take it back to the store and the storekeeper might even give him another and genuine belt, but that would not settle the matter. Another belt would hold up his trousers, but there is still the misrepresentation. It is a matter of dishonesty.
We might conclude that the odd belt was wrongly stamped, and that might be a good excuse. But the storekeeper looked at the shipment and found they were all the same, so he sent them back. That is a different matter.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: A man never knows when he is safe these days.


Ernest George Hansell: As my hon. friend says, a man never knows when he is safe with just paper around his waist. I should like the minister to answer that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I imagine there is a federal statute, the Criminal Code or the Weights and Measures Act or some such statute as that which requires that one who puts out a product of this sort, being stamped and purporting to be a certain product, is responsible if it falls short of the representation which was placed upon it. Whether or not that would cover a paper belt, stamped as "genuine cowhide", I should not like to say offhand without consulting the statute. I will say this, Mr. Chairman: if it does not cover it, it certainly should. I shall check to see whether or not it is. If it is not covered, we should certainly introduce an amendment to the proper act in short order. We want to keep up the trousers of the nation.


Ernest George Hansell: I recognize that the minister realizes the principle involved, but is the wholesaler or manufacturer liable to prosecution? That is the thing I should like to know. If so, what procedure must be taken? Must a chap run off to a policeman and report to him?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The simple answer to the hon. member's question would be for him to consult the crown prosecutor in his district. My only reason for qualifying my reply to the hon. member's question is that it is very difficult for one who has been presented with a torn paper belt to say that this comes under section so and so of an act, without even looking at the act. There are federal statutes which are passed for the express purpose of prohibiting this sort of thing generally. In order to successfully prosecute an accused in a case of this kind, one must bring his case under some section of an existing statute.
If there is a lacuna in that statute, if there is a gap, and they have not thought of this particular matter, it may be that it is not covered by an existing law. As I said before, if it is not covered it certainly should be and I shall be glad, over the dinner recess, to make a check to see whether or not this product is covered.


Ernest George Hansell: We are in the process of trying to get through the estimates and so forth, so I wonder if this would be satisfactory to the minister? Will he pass this over to one of his officials and drop a line to the hon. member for Battle River? Would he mind doing that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I shall be glad to do that.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister might let me have the belt back.


Howard Charles Green: There are two questions which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and this house on the first item. The first has to do with the price war in cigarettes which has been under way in Vancouver-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Might I interrupt for a
moment? I wonder if we might start going through the estimates, and then deal with these matters as they come up? The point to which my hon. friend is referring now comes under the heading of the Combines Investigation Act, and I shall be glad to deal with it.


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately, it does not come under the Combines Investigation Act as that act reads now. I would prefer to place these two questions before the minister on this item. In Vancouver, for nearly two months, there has been a price war in cigarettes. In my opinion the chain stores have been using them as a loss leader. The business of these chain stores is primarily that of selling food and not cigarettes. The result of this price war has been to upset greatly the small stores which rely on cigarette sales for their main business.

I have some advertisements here from the Vancouver papers showing that the chain stores have been selling one package of 20 cigarettes for 31 cents, 3 packages for 89 cents and 10 packages for $2.95. Until recently it was costing the small tobacco store proprietor $2.91 for ten packages. Hence, if he was to compete with the chain store he had a margin of only four cents on ten packages. I believe that the distributors have now lowered the price to the small merchant to some extent and that he has a margin of 30 cents on ten packages.
I am sure the minister will agree that the little fellow simply cannot compete with these prices which are being charged by the chain stores. The small merchant depends on his tobacco business for his livelihood. I am told that in Vancouver there are over 2,000 people who are affected, many of whom are veterans and others who are handicapped in one way or another. There is a great deal of concern about the matter. These small merchants are convinced that they are just being run out of business by the chain stores. I submit that the small merchant in any community is the backbone of our merchandising system. It is not right that he should be subjected to unfair competition of this kind.
During the second session of 1951 this question was considered by a special committee to which some reference was made earlier in the afternoon. In their report which was made on December 7, 1951, I find this paragraph:
Certain groups appearing before the committee have expressed the view that one of the consequences of prohibiting resale price maintenance will be to enable large and powerful retailing interests to engage in a policy of selling goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying the independent retailer.
My opinion is that that is what is being done in the cigarette war in Vancouver. The report continues:
This committee does not think that under present conditions there is any substantial likelihood of such policies being engaged in but would recommend to the government, in the event of such policies being practised, the vigorous enforcement of section 498A of the Criminal Code which reads as follows . . .
Then the committee report sets out section 498A. There we have from a special committee of the house a clear-cut recommendation as to what action should be taken by the minister in the event of there arising a situation such as that which exists in Vancouver today. There is a further and final paragraph of the report which reads as follows:
Your committee is of the view that if other types of predatory price cutting, the possibility and the nature of which cannot at the present time be
Supply-Justice
foreseen, take place, the government should then consider placing before parliament further amendments of the Combines Investigation Act or the Criminal Code prohibiting such other types of predatory price cutting and providing adequate penalties for them.
There again we have a definite recommendation of a course of action to be followed by the government in the event of there being this predatory price cutting.
The minister has spoken of investigations. Apparently there have been bodies investigating for some time. As a matter of fact, in the annual report of the director of investigation and research for the year ended March 31, 1953, there is at page 27 a reference to one of those investigations. But unfortunately, investigating the matter is not going to help the small merchant out in Vancouver. He may very well be bankrupt long before any report has been filed by the people who are making this investigation.
I would ask the minister to tell us today what action, if any, is going to be taken by his department. When the minister mentioned these investigations a few moments ago he said-if I understood him correctly-that he did not expect a report for many months yet. I should like to know why the first recommendation of the special committee cannot be followed. That recommendation was that section 498A of the Criminal Code could be used to meet a situation of this kind. I would also ask the minister why it has not been possible during the present session to bring in some legislation such as that recommended in the final paragraph of the report of the committee.
I believe that these small merchants must not be forced to the wall. If the chain stores are allowed to get away with this action on cigarettes, it is only a question of time until they will be taking steps which will affect some other group of small merchants. In view of the stand the minister took in 1951 during the discussion of this whole question of resale price maintenance, I think he is morally bound to take action now that there have actually come to pass the things which we warned him would happen. I believe there is an obligation on him and on the government to take some action to meet this situation.
The other question I wish to place before the minister concerns the province of British Columbia as well. It concerns the district in which I was born and in which I still have family connections, namely the Kootenay district in southeastern British Columbia. It is this Doukhobor question. Ten days ago or two weeks ago the minister had talks

Supply-Justice
here with the attorney general of British Columbia concerning this question. This is only one of many talks that have taken place between a Minister of Justice of Canada and an attorney general of British Columbia on the Doukhobor question down through the years. The minister has not made a report to the house on the result of these conversations but I wish to emphasize to him the importance of the dominion government giving to the people of British Columbia justification for believing that the federal government is prepared to do its share toward bringing about a settlement of this problem. There is now a feeling that the dominion has been brushing aside the representations of the province.
I have here an editorial from the Vancouver Sun which is one of the strong supporters of this government. It was written shortly before the attorney general of British Columbia came to Ottawa.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, in order to save my hon. friend the need for developing an argument of this sort, may I say that I had this talk with Mr. Bonner-


Howard Charles Green: If I may, I should just like to finish my statement. Then the minister can make his answer. I do not want to be cut off in the middle of my submission.
This is the leading editorial of the day and it is entitled, "Bon Voyage to Bonner". The first paragraph reads as follows:
B.C. will wish Attorney-General Bonner miraculous luck-
And I stress that word "miraculous".
B.C. will wish Attorney General Bonner miraculous luck in his demand for federal aid and money to get the sons of freedom "removed immediately from this province."
The minister knows that the sons of freedom is the portion or sect of the Doukhobor settlement which is causing all the trouble. The editorial continues:
He'll need it to crack Ottawa's unvarying thirty-year refusal to shoulder any real responsibility for the terror and trouble freedomite fanatics have inflicted on B.C.
Previous provincial governments have ardently shared Mr. Bonner's wish. They've begged and pleaded with Ottawa to recognize that, in bringing the Doukhobors to Canada, the federal government assumed a responsibility for their subsequent outrages which it can't morally shove onto B.C.
But Ottawa has always straight-armed such appeals. Federal authorities smugly dismissed B.C.'s trouble as "a question of law enforcement for which the provincial government is responsible."
And I think I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Justice

use these words in the house the other day. The editorial goes on:
At most Ottawa would dispatch some extra mounties to the Kootenays when mass outbreaks threatened.
That editorial accurately summarizes the attitude which has been taken by successive dominion governments on this Doukhobor problem.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not agree with that for a moment.


Howard Charles Green: Here we have a situation in British Columbia where in one of these districts, according to press dispatches of May 4:
More than twenty homes, as well as a community hall, an unoccupied store and a sawmill, have been put to the torch in the last month.
Railway tracks have also been bombed.
Residents have started armed night patrols to guard their homes and businesses against further violence.
The spiritual leader of the sons of freedom sect, who is down in South America looking for a new home for them, said, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 11:
The spiritual leader of the sons of freedom, speaking from a foreign land, has said he won't use his influence with his unruly flock unless the federal government will help him solve the Doukhobor problem "once and for all".
"The Doukhobors are not my problem", said Stefan Sorokin. "They are Canadians and the Canadian government should be concerned over them."
The dispatch went on in another paragraph to say this:
The long-absent Sorokin, in Uruguay looking for a new home for his people, says he won't return to try to smooth things over in the Kootenays unless he can get help from the federal government.
I suggest to the minister that there are at least two things that could be done. I admit that the problem is dreadfully difficult. I do not know that these are the answers to the question, but I do make two suggestions. In the first place, the dominion government should say to the provincial government that one-half of the costs occasioned by this trouble will be met by the dominion government. The province of British Columbia is to be faced with an expenditure of about $300,000 this year, and perhaps more, if this trouble continues; that money is to be used for special guards on railways, bridges and school houses, and other special measures which have to be taken to meet the situation. In view of the background of this situation, it is only fair that the two governments should team up and make a joint approach to a settlement.
The second situation is this. Why is it not possible for the Department of External Affairs to co-operate with this spiritual leader and with anyone else who is trying

to find a home for this sect in another country? The representatives of the sect went to Costa Rica. We were told there was a reasonable chance of their migrating to that country. Now he is in Uruguay, and there might be a chance of their moving there. I should think it would be possible for the government, through the Department of External Affairs, to give considerable help in arranging for a migration of that type. If that can be done, this whole problem will be settled.
Unfortunately, this particular sect seems to be completely unwilling to adopt the laws of Canada and settle down as ordinary citizens. They have been carrying on in this way for many years; in fact ever since I was a small boy, and I do not see any prospect of settling the problem in the near future unless a far greater effort is made than there has been up to the present time. I should be very grateful if the minister could deal with these two questions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the member representing the constituency in which the great majority of the Doukhobors and the sons of freedom reside, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few remarks on this question. My constituents have been very concerned about this problem for quite a number of years, and recent events, house burnings, railroad bombings and that kind of thing, have increased that concern and indignation and have about completely exhausted their patience. However, to save the time of the committee, I think I can place before hon. members the attitude of the people at this time by reading briefly from an editorial of the Nelson Daily News as follows:
Need greater police strength to control sabotage In Kootenay.
Continuing attacks against power lines smack of a purpose more serious than religious zealots protesting against a way of life with which they do not fully agree.
The Kootenay-Boundary over the years has become almost used to fires that destroy homes of sons of freedom sect members, schools and barns. These are serious enough, but something more deadly has shown itself in more recent incidents. The week-end dynamiting of power lines feeding from West Kootenay to East Kootenay, and recent burning and bombing of bridges and destruction of sawmills are attacks against men's lives and livelihood. They must be regarded as something more serious than the usual outbreaks that are laid at the sons of freedom's door. These attacks equal the viciousness of those that plagued the railways and power companies in the thirties: they exceed in seriousness, if not in number, the outbreaks of 1947 and 1949-50.
The Kootenay has shown an admirable tolerance and a willingness to uphold the latest efforts in the sons of freedom problem; citizens are entitled to expect, however, adequate protection while these efforts are being carried forward as we should be
Supply

Justice
able to expect them to be when the government gets around to acting on the recommendations arising from the latest studies.
The government referred to in the editorial is the provincial government of British Columbia. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, patience in my constituency is about exhausted. In this connection, there have been many meetings, and some suggest to the authorities they may have to take the matter into their own hands. I have had some personal experience with this problem, since I know personally a large number of Doukhobors. I want to make quite clear the distinction between the 10,000 law-abiding persons known as Doukhobors and the 2,500 persons known as sons of freedom. The sons of freedom belong to a small sect whose burnings and bombings are supposed to be exhibitions of protest against the Canadianiza-tion of the majority of the Doukhobor community.
On a good many occasions since coming to Ottawa I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister of Justice. I have found him most anxious to secure information and to hear suggestions. I must say I have found him most co-operative in listening to representations and opinions. I have found that the minister has a great deal of sympathy for any government in British Columbia, regardless of political stripe, that has to face this longstanding and most difficult and complicated question. Without a doubt, it is the outstanding, serious social problem created by any one group in Canada at this time. Furthermore I have found the minister has a great deal of sympathy for the people of the Kootenays and the surrounding country who, in the light of their experiences throughout the years, have now almost exhausted their patience.
I find also that the minister is most anxious to do all he can to support any provincial government that puts into writing satisfactory proposals and on which can be based a satisfactory policy. I might say in that connection that, to date, there has not been a single government in British Columbia that has accepted its full responsibilities in this matter, and has outlined to the federal government-any federal	government-a
written policy or proposal to deal with this matter in a co-operative way.
Owing to the urgent demands of the people in Kootenay West, who are seriously affected, the attorney general of British Columbia came to Ottawa early in May and discussed this situation with the Minister of Justice.

Supply-Justice
Then shortly afterwards the premier of the province who had been speaking at Trail, on the insistence of a group of people who are very concerned with this situation, sent a wire to the Prime Minister of Canada urging certain action. I shall deal with that wire first of all. According to the statement by the Minister of Justice the wire was in these words:
Doukhobor situation in Kootenays extremely critical. Unless some action taken immediately expect violence will break out. Strongly recommend that your government under the powers of the War Measures Act proclaim an immediate curfew on all Doukhobors in the Kootenay district of British Columbia.
When I heard the minister read that telegram, when replying to my question a few days ago, I was simply horrified to think that any provincial premier in Canada at this time would suggest that the War Measures Act be invoked, thus giving the government of Canada unlimited authority over all property and civil rights and of persons in peacetime. Such action would make it possible for the federal government to freeze wages, direct people to employment, and to do many other things required in wartime. I am sure when the premier of British Columbia sent that telegram he was not fully aware of the implications of giving effect to the War Measures Act.
Second, I was greatly surprised to see that the premier suggested that there should be a curfew in respect of all Doukhobors in British Columbia. That confusion is possible because of the attitude of many people in that province who continuously confuse the Doukhobors with the sons of freedom. This outlook arises because of elections act legislation. For instance, in British Columbia a Doukhobor is any person who, under the elections act, is the descendant of a Doukhobor, and for that reason cannot vote.
There are bachelors of science, bachelors of art, presidents of chambers of commerce, active workers in trade unions and businessmen generally who at the present time are denied the vote. What surprised me was to have the premier of British Columbia suggesting that this government give effect to the War Measures Act and establish a curfew on all Doukhobors in British Columbia. In sending that telegram he must have failed to realize that if this government had acceded to his wishes it would have meant a gross indignity to the wife of one of his own cabinet ministers by prohibiting her from going out after sunset.
I mention these facts because I am sure the premier did not realize the full implications of his telegram. May I say, as one who

has always defended the Doukhobors who are good citizens, many of whom are becoming incorporated in our Canadian life, and have advocated that they be given the franchise, that we in this group will severally protest against the use of any curfew by any government that would limit the freedom of such fine persons as I have described.
I might say that the present pernicious election law on the statute books of British Columbia, placed there by a Conservative government, has prevented thousands of good citizens from exercising their franchise. It is that type of legislation and attitude which to some extent has fed the fires of discontent in this splinter group known as the sons of freedom.
And now I should like to make a few remarks about the government's reply. I have studied this question closely, and I have personal knowledge of it. I have employed some of these people and have met and known hundreds of them. I think the government's reply was made on sound grounds. The Acting Prime Minister was correct when he suggested that it is a constitutional responsibility of the provincial government to administer law and justice in the province. On that account this government has asked the government of British Columbia to submit in writing its policy to meet this situation. When that policy is submitted in writing, and if it is mutually satisfactory to both governments, my understanding is that this government is willing to give its support to such a policy.
The telegram in reply indicates in every way a willingness on the part of the government to co-operate with, and to support and co-operate with the provincial government in British Columbia, in dealing with this unfortunate situation. Upon asking a question of the minister this morning I was very much surprised to learn that, although early in May the attorney general of British Columbia was in Ottawa discussing this question with the Minister of Justice, and although he knows the urgent nature and the seriousness of the situation, the concern of the railroaders, those who are operating the trains, and the views of the people in the Slocan and other valleys in which these sons of freedom live, so many days have passed without this government having received proposals from the government of British Columbia, or any notification in writing as to its policy.
I could speak at some considerable length on this subject, but I shall not further trespass on the time of the house. I must bring to the attention of the minister, as I have done before-and I know it is fully recognized by him-that this is a most peculiar

and serious problem in my constituency. I do urge that just as soon as he receives the written policy from the government of British Columbia he should place those proposals before the cabinet, with a view to bringing about an agreement concerning policy and action. Just as soon as possible this government should do all it can to assist the government of British Columbia in maintaining law and order, and by making a financial contribution toward the cost of solving this problem in a satisfactory manner.
The problem has both immediate and longterm aspects. I do not include in that one small group of trouble makers even all the sons of freedom. Some of these people in my opinion are infants led by a small group of lunatics; and it is that small group of lunatics with which the governments of British Columbia and of Canada must deal sternly if they are to stop these serious violations of the law in the Kootenay district.
That is the immediate problem. The next problem is that of long-term measures to win these people away from the small group which has control and to incorporate the Doukhobor community as a whole in our general Canadian community. Another step in that connection is to do all we can to bring to bear upon the government of British Columbia the necessity for an amendment to the elections act which at the present time denies the franchise to thousands of good Canadians. The act should be amended to give these people the opportunity to exercise their franchise and in that way to become fully incorporated into our Canadian community.


George Harris Hees: I want to bring a matter to the minister's attention which I think shows a rather distressing disregard by people in his department for the problems of individuals. I want to read a letter written to me recently by a lawyer in Toronto, Mr. W. R. Allen of the firm of Allen and Meyrick. I will be glad to give the letter to the minister. I will not mention the lawyer's client by name because he has requested me not to do so, but it is in the letter and the minister can see it there. I think he will realize the reasons for not mentioning the client's name. In the letter he says:
I acted for one . . . who was convicted on September 19, 1952, at Lindsay, Ontario, of uttering a forged cheque. He was sentenced to eight months in the reformatory and served his time at Rideau industrial farm, Burritts Rapids. In December application was made on his behalf for a remission of sentence based on the following facts:
1.	He spent two months approximately in custody awaiting trial, most of which was at the request of the crown attorney in order to complete and further their investigation.
2.	His wife was living in Vancouver with him and their child at the time of his arrest and being
Supply-Justice
unable to provide for her own living, she was returned to Toronto, and I am informed that she was forced to accept relief intermittently.
3.	. . . was hospitalized at the industrial farm for a conviction which led to his discharge from the army one year previous.
4.	. . . was the recipient of a citation order for gallantry during the second world war.
5.	A former employer guaranteed employment upon his release.
On January 23, 1953, I brought all of these facts to the attention of Mr. A. A. Moffat, remission branch, Department of Justice, Ottawa, who advised me on January 31, 1953, that the case was already under investigation. On April 17, 1953, I was advised by Ph. Thibault for undersecretary of state that "the Solicitor General of Canada has found himself unable to advise His Excellency the Governor General to interfere with the sentence imposed by the court."
Then Mr. Allen goes on to say:
On the day previous to the date of this letter, April 15, 1953, . . . telephoned me to say that he had been released from the industrial farm and had already returned to work. You will appreciate the embarrassment that this situation could cause a solicitor to be advised by the Department of the Secretary of State that a man had been refused remission after he had been released. Our profession treats the matter of remissions very seriously, particularly in a case of this type where it is a wife and child who are suffering hardships, and I would not like to think that there is any unnecessary delay in the processing of these applications by the department.
X bring this to the minister's attention because I think it shows where bureaucracy can lead us. This lawyer is a very reasonable and sensible man, and he put forward what I think is a reasonable and sensible case. He brought the case to the attention of the government. His application lay around for two and a half months. It seems obvious that the Solicitor General then had it brought to his attention and said to himself: oh well, we had better do something about this matter because it has been around for quite a while. He then wrote a routine letter, as so often seems to be the case when we apply on behalf of individuals, saying in very pious terms that nothing could be done.
Then it turned out, as is so often the case, that the lance-corporal in the orderly room was a much more reasonable and sensible sort of person than the people higher up. It always seemed to be that way in the army. He took the matter into his own hands, followed the reasonable course and released the man before his sentence had expired.
I think this shows how a ridiculous situation can develop. The man was released the day before the Solicitor General wrote a pious letter saying that the case had been thoroughly investigated and that the government could not see its way clear to apply to the Governor General for clemency. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister because I hope that he will see to it that his colleague, the Solicitor General, and the other people in his

Supply-Justice
department take these matters a little more seriously, and when they are brought to his attention I hope he will see that something of a reasonable nature is done.
Obviously a good case for early release was put forward on behalf of this man, and early release was accomplished, but so far as the Solicitor General was concerned-the second senior man in the justice department, as I understand it-the man could stay there and serve out his term. He completely washed his hands of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is the Solicitor General now?


George Harris Hees: That is not good enough.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does the material in my hon. friend's possession disclose whether the prisoner was released after he had served his time or was he let out on remission?


George Harris Hees: He was let out on remission. I shall be very glad to give the minister the letter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In fairness to the very good staff that we have in the remissions branch I want to say that we handle about 10,000 applications for remission per annum, and that this is the first time in my four years' experience in the department when an error of this sort has occurred. During that time we have handled about 40,000 such cases, and I am sure that my hon. friend, being a businessman, would like to give his staff the benefit of not disapproving of them too much if they made a mistake in one case out of 40,000.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You cannot make mistakes with human beings.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend is under quite a misapprehension when he says that the Solicitor General simply sits there, looks at a letter and says to himself: what do I think about this, shall we let him out or not? That is not what happens at all. When an application for remission is made it goes into the department. A file is opened for it. Then a letter is written to the magistrate or judge who convicted the prisoner to obtain his opinion as to whether remission should be granted. The warden of the jail or penitentiary is also written to and a police report is obtained. In each case it is upon the basis of all these reports that the remission officers make a recommendation, and that recommendation having come to the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, as the case may be, it is acted upon by his attaching his signature to it.
I would be very glad to look into this matter to see what is the explanation of it,

but it could quite likely be simply a clerical mistake. My hon. friend, like some of the other statesmen of his party, makes his political appeals by making a great commotion when some clerk in the government service makes some minor error of procedure.


George Harris Hees: I am not complaining about some clerk in the government service. I am complaining that the Solicitor General did not pay any attention to the matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has no idea whatsoever as to what attention the Solicitor General paid to the matter because if it came before the Solicitor General and he rejected it he would do so upon recommendation of the officers of that department based upon a report from the judge or magistrate plus a report from the warden plus a report from the police. In no case is that judgment exercised until this material is considered, but it may very well have been that somewhere along the line of communication between the remission branch of the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State there has been a clerical error in connection with the communications to the legal firm and others concerned. If my hon. friend thinks that as a member of this House of Commons it is important enough for him to occupy his time and the time of us all, and make a great commotion-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Certainly it is his privilege. He should do it; it is his obligation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -I shall be very glad to look into it and tell my hon. friend exactly how the error arose. Doubtless it was an error, but it is not an error of any casual inattention on the part of the minister. It does not gel to the minister until it has gone through all of the stages I have mentioned.


George Harris Hees: I think we have had a very interesting statement by the minister. He finds it extraordinary that a member of parliament should stand up and take the time of the house to bring to the attention of the minister what he seriously considers to be an injustice to a Canadian citizen. I want to assure the minister that any time I think an injustice has been done to any single Canadian citizen I will take time, and all the time that I think I need in the house on it; and I believe that every other member of parliament will do the same thing.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have certainly listened to a great explanation on behalf of the minister right now. The words that he used were that he did not think that a member of parliament should dare to bring-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You virtually said "dare".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


An hon. Member:: You sit down.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have as much right to the floor as you have.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. When the chairman is on his feet both hon. members must resume their seats.
The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend has been quite unintentionally misrepresenting the point of view I endeavoured to express. I was endeavouring to express that in a matter of this kind the position could very easily have been resolved if my hon. friend had used the telephone. Inside of about thirty seconds we could have told him what the situation was. Then, if he thought there was anything that deserved the attention of the House of Commons, he could have come into this chamber and raised all the commotion he liked. I think he must give the government credit for a modicum of ordinary common sense. He might have known that where there is a report apparently put out by the Solicitor General and another put out by the Secretary of State, which are inconsistent, in all likelihood there has been some clerical mix-up along the line and that it is quite explicable.
I have no objection to the commotion. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is a matter for every member to decide for himself; that is, whether he desires to make a commotion about something of this sort in the House of Commons. That is his right and privilege and I would be the last man to take any objection to it; but I have been in the habit in matters of this kind of settling the affair by way of a telephone call.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have never been in opposition.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Are we to deal with everything by the telephone? Is it not the right of a member sent here by his constituents to bring up a matter on the floor of the house? That should be his privilege, and he does not have to use the telephone. If my friend believes that this is the place to bring the matter up he should not be instructed by the minister to hush it up by using the telephone. This is a matter which
Supply-Justice
has been exposed today on the floor of the House of Commons indicating carelessness on the part of some person in the minister's department-gross carelessness.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Can we not pass on to the next item?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: After all, it was just a human being incarcerated in jail.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Can we not pass on to the next item, which is the remission item?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the proper place to draw to the minister's attention what seems to be a very serious situation in connection with smuggling, particularly smuggling of cigarettes. I have here the report of the R.C.M.P. for the year ending March 31, 1952. On page 17 I read that in the year 1951-52 there were 67,000-odd seizures of smuggled cigarettes. I read further on that the quantity seized, again speaking of cigarettes, is approximately 400 per cent greater than in the preceding year. I find also that in the year ending March 31, 1953, seizures again apparently almost doubled and there were 115,415 seizures. I wonder if the minister would speak about that and would he indicate what the attitude of the department is.
Of course, we know the reason for it. The reason is that cigarettes cost much more in Canada and that smuggling is very lucrative. However, it seems to me that it is serious enough that some explanation would be justified. This law breaking is going on and it seems to be increasing by leaps and bounds. I know the difficulties but I would like to know if the minister thinks there is any way they can be coped with.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This matter came up and was discussed at considerable length last year. If my hon. friend will remember, the question raised by him then was whether the provisions which the mounted police had made to cope with cigarette smuggling were adequate. At that time I placed before the house figures which were largely the counterpart of those which my hon. friend has just placed before us now, indicating that there had been, as I recall, something of the order of a 46 per cent increase over the previous year. The figures which he presently quotes represent another increase and my hon. friend is asking whether we have taken steps to cope with this situation.
I should think that the figures which we gave last year, indicating a substantial increase in the seizures and in the prosecutions, and the figures which he has just now

Supply

Justice
quoted for the present year indicating a rather substantial increase over last year, in themselves supply very cogent evidence of the fact that we have taken steps to cope with the situation. As my hon. friend would perhaps admit, it is not merely a matter of law enforcement against smuggling and the like which constitutes coping with the situation. He has argued, prior to the reduction in taxation upon cigarettes which occurred recently, that such a reduction should take place. However, I would be inclined to think that from now on-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Minister of Finance does not always take my advice.


George James McIlraith: The people of Canada are very grateful for that.


George Harris Hees: A small pause there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There has been a substantial reduction in cigarette tax and, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has pointed out a few moments ago there has also been a substantial reduction in cigarette prices. Cigarettes have gone down very materially from what they were at their high point. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that these facts will be an important influence upon cigarette seizures and the like in the coming year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps the minister would add his efforts to ours in persuading the Minister of Finance that this is very unsound, not only economically but morally.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not going to deal with the two questions I asked?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raised a point concerning the Doukhobors. As has been mentioned by one of my colleagues here, I think that has been dealt with quite competently by the hon. member for Kootenay West. However, I might supplement his remarks by saying this. So far as I am concerned as Minister of Justice, we have always taken a most cooperative attitude towards the British Columbia government of the day in relation to this Doukhobor problem. So far we have complied with their requests for assistance of various kinds. For instance, our departmental policy in the remissions branch in relation to the Doukhobors is the product of an understanding between the two governments and the consultative committee, I think is the term, that has been created in British Columbia to deal with the problem.
The other day when the Hon. Mr. Bonner, the new attorney general of British Columbia, came to Ottawa, we maintained the same
[Mr. Garson.1
friendly co-operative attitude with regard to his government that we had previously maintained. I spent some time with him. We had lunch together, and were together for nearly two hours after lunch. During that time he dealt with what seemed to him to be every aspect of this Doukhobor problem. All this was done orally without any kind of written data being submitted. When we were finished I said to him, "Now, Mr. Bonner, I want to make sure in presenting your views to my colleagues in the cabinet that I adequately present your viewpoint, so I would suggest that you write me a letter, brief or any other kind of communication, setting out what your government thinks would be the appropriate policy for you to adopt in relation to this problem, and indicating what co-operation you would like the federal government to provide. When I receive that I shall present it to my colleagues, and I will write to you indicating the extent to which we can join with you in carrying out what you have in mind."
The hon. member for Kootenay West made one remark which I cannot accept. He said that we would support the policy. We will support a policy providing it carries the judgment of the members of our own government. I cannot bind my colleagues until I have a document to place in front of them or until they have seen what the proposals are. I have let the matter stand in that position. I thought it was much preferable that the people who are close to the problem, who have the constitutional responsibility for dealing with it, should make their proposals to us. We are 2,500 or 3,000 miles away. Then, we could consider the proposals on their merits. I do not see how it would be possible for any government to be more reasonable in a matter of that kind than by taking the action I have just described.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister for an answer to the suggestion that the government should share the expenses of meeting this problem. Is the dominion government willing to undertake any portion of the financial expenses?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, in relation to this matter the dominion government has always been willing to consider any reasonable proposal that was made. But it would be manifestly absurd for me, as a single member of the government without having had placed before me how much the expenditure was going to be, or upon what it was to be spent, to make a statement that the federal government would pay half. In other words, we have to have something concrete that I can take to the Prime Minister and ministers of the government of Canada, before we can ever

hope to get any decision from that government as to what they are prepared to do in relation to that concrete proposition. We cannot say, yes, we will take half of something until we know what that something is.
All that we are asking is that we have a concrete proposition as to what is wanted so that we can reach an intelligent conclusion as to whether or not it would be advisable to make the expenditures involved.


Howard Charles Green: I would urge upon the minister that when the proposal does come in the dominion government accept half of the financial responsibility for meeting the problem.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thank the hon. member for his urging.


Howard Charles Green: By the way, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister about the possibility of the Department of External Affairs endeavouring to help find a home for these sons of freedom in Costa Rica or Uruguay? Would it not be possible for something to be done along that line?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps I have a wrong understanding of this matter, but with all due respect to the hon. member it seems to me that we should not sit here reaching opinions as to what should be done with the spiritual leader and the like, when there is a government on the job in British Columbia which is seized with the facts and the constitutional responsibility for this whole problem. Surely, to ask them to make a proposal which we would consider is the least we can do to show proper respect to their position and their responsibility. For my part, I think that before we started making arrangements ourselves with Uruguay or Costa Rica or anything of that sort, we should want to have something to show whether or not British Columbia was in favour of that action. If we are really going to co-operate with them, we can only co-operate by endeavouring to work out a policy which it is their responsibility to formulate, and which they are in a much better position to formulate than anybody else.


Howard Charles Green: If this sect wish to go to Costa Rica or Uruguay, and apparently they are very much interested in doing so, then the British Columbia government could do nothing about that movement. All I am asking is whether or not the dominion government would be willing to help out in that movement; for example have our representatives in Uruguay try to help smooth out any difficulties there may be with that government. That has nothing to do with the province, and the only government that could help would be the dominion government.
Supply-Justice


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government willing to do that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest to my hon. friend that the way to deal with this matter is for the British Columbia government to have a well thought out plan which is an entity, submit that and indicate to us what co-operation they want. If they wish us to get in touch with these other states, I am sure we would be quite prepared to consider such a suggestion on its merits. But when they are seized of this matter, in my judgment, no good can come out of our taking any independent action. We should try to assist them in implementing an intelligent policy which they formulate.


Howard Charles Green: What about the cigarette price war?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much time. I could speak at great length upon this subject, because it is quite a large one. The situation is this. These facts to which my hon. friend has referred were reported to us and it was suggested in the first instance that the cigarette manufacturers had been guilty of an offence under section 498A of the Criminal Code in that they were allegedly giving to the chains a more favourable discount than they were making available to, shall I say, the orthodox wholesalers.
We have investigated that charge and, upon the basis of the data which we have so far received, have discovered that it is without foundation; that is to say, we have found that the chains buy from the manufacturers on the same basis for like quantities -the quality being the same in the case of cigarettes-as do the wholesalers, and that the lower price at which the chains sell to their customers is the product of two factors: one, that the chain wholesale subsidiary or wholesale associate takes a lower wholesale mark-up and that the chains themselves take a lower retail mark-up than does the ordinary wholesaler on the one hand or the ordinary retailer on the other hand.
But neither of these two acts-that is, the taking of a lower mark-up in the wholesale line or a lower mark-up in the retail line- is an offence under the law. Certainly from the standpoint of the consumer, I am sure that he would greatly question whether it should ever be made an offence because, for the first time in a long history of cigarette and tobacco selling, we have at the present time a competitive condition which has brought about a substantial reduction in price to the consumer.

Supply-Justice
It will be found by my hon. friend, if he wishes to investigate the matter, that while the mark-up that has been taken by the chain stores is, as I have indicated, lower than it previously had been when resale price maintenance was permitted, the mark-up which is taken on cigarettes does not vary greatly from what the chains take on many other item of merchandise. Hence if we are going to say that we should create an offence and say that it is contrary to law for a free enterpriser-a wholesaler or a retailer-in this country to carry out his function in relation to distribution for a low charge, then we would have to apply that same principle right across the board to coffee, soap, cheese and everything that is sold in that way.
I greatly doubt that the Canadian people would be in favour of following that practice. Where you have a situation such as that which exists today, where in many lines of merchandise it takes as much money to get the product from the manufacturer's door to the consumer as it does to manufacture it, I think there will be quite a strong view, especially among consumers, that it is rather a good thing when the costs of distribution can be reduced.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not agree that this is loss-leader selling?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have had under examination for many months this matter as to whether it is loss-leader selling and we are keeping it under observation. However, in response to my hon. friend's question, I should not like to say, upon the basis of the material that we have before us at the present time, that it is loss-leader selling.


Mr. Aylesworih:: I wish to point out to the minister that there is a grave housing shortage in Kingston. I understand that the government has been approached to sell some of the land around Kingston penitentiary so that it may be used for a housing project. This land is being farmed, and has been farmed for some years. Hay and grain from it have been used to feed cows which provide milk for the penitentiary. This procedure was all right when the farmers had plenty of outlets for their cheese, butter, milk and so on, but there is no shortage of milk around that district at the present time. The land creates a bottleneck in the plans of Kingston city to provide services for the districts which lie beyond this land.
As the minister knows, there are over 700 acres of land there. The greater part of this land is used only for pasture. Hay has been cut off it for several years and stacked. I remember several years when the hay would

be sold, probably during the fall or the next spring, and would bring about $1 a ton, a price which did not even pay for the gasoline or the feed for the horses while it was being cut.
What I want to bring to the minister's attention is this. As far as I can see, this land has not been of any service either to the penitentiary or to the people of the district. I feel that this land or some portion of it should be turned over to the city for a housing project.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
163. Remission service, $113,176.
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to make just one reference which has to do with the question of remission. Some weeks ago, in the course of a debate in the house, I brought to the attention of the minister the case of two or three persons who had been wrongfully convicted of offences of which they were totally innocent, and I suggested that some consideration should be given to compensation to persons in that category. At that time the minister was extremely definite in the expression of his viewpoint; and when he is definite he is as unchanging as the laws of the Medes and the Persians.
But in this regard, after having read the general reaction of the press of this country to the need for something being arrived at whereby compensation similar to that paid in Great Britain would be paid to such persons, I am hoping that he has given some reconsideration to the matter. I approach him in the attitude not of gloating in anticipation of a change of heart but of hoping that, after giving the matter more mature consideration than he had given to it previously, he may have arrived at the conclusion that some consideration should be given to compensating innocent people who, having been wrongfully convicted, have served terms in jail or penitentiary.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman. I should like to hear whether the minister has anything more to say about the matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the difficulty in the case my hon. friend has raised is this. As I am sure my hon. friend would be the first to agree, there is no question whatsoever that the administration of justice is exclusively the responsibility of the provinces. We in the federal sphere have nothing whatever to do with the administration of justice until we come to the exercise of the Queen's prerogative of mercy in our remissions branch of the Department of Justice. Up to that point everything is conducted by the crown prosecutors of the provinces in provincial courts and is entirely under their provincial control.

If my hon. friend means that we should confer with the provinces as to some method whereby we could bring about compensation in these cases, I would have no objection to doing that, not the slightest. But I am sure my hon. friend would agree that if we were to do this thing on our own initiative, and if we were to justify the payment of money out of the federal treasury to compensate a man in respect of having been found by a provincial court under provincial prosecution to have been guilty when he was actually innocent, we would be conducting on our own initiative an inquiry under purely federal auspices and reaching a judgment that there had been maladministration or maybe worse by the provinces.
Can my hon. friend imagine, under the federal system of government, anything more likely to create a lack of harmony than that sort of action on the part of the federal government? Therefore, if my hon. friend has suggested that the federal government should pay compensation in respect of a provincial prosecution in provincial courts that made an innocent man guilty, then I would beg to differ with him. But if what he means is that we might, on the next occasion we have a federal-provincial conference dealing with constitutional matters, raise the question as to whether Canada and the provinces together could not find some way in which the province would compensate those who have suffered from provincial prosecution and we would do likewise in the federal field, then I would be all for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
164. Administration of justice, miscellaneous
expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $21,200.
John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister state the total amount of legal fees that were paid to counsel in the various provinces by the Department of Justice? What was the total amount during the last fiscal year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My officials tell me they do not have this figure at the moment. A few days ago I tabled a return in response to a question of my hon. friend in which was shown by departments the names of all those legal firms who had received in excess of, I think it was, $1,000. I think my hon. friend will find that list amply sufficient for his purposes.


John George Diefenbaker: 1 am very interested in some of these. Some of these legal fees seem to be quite high.


Mr. McCann:: They always are.
08108-340i
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: It is significant that those who have the high fees also have the qualifications for appointment as solicitors. I was quite interested in a number of them. Under the Department of Justice there is D. D. Carrick, Toronto, who received $17,661. The minister might be able to tell us what that was for.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at his list-I have not a copy of it at hand myself, but I remember it in general terms.


John George Diefenbaker: The Department of
Justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. If he looks at the list he will see that there are four cases in which the sums of money paid are quite large. Each one of these four cases has to do with a prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act; and the solicitor to whom he is now referring, Mr. Carrick, was one of the counsel in the rubber case. That would include his fees for preparation and for the trial itself.


John George Diefenbaker: This item covers only part of it. Then we have Mr. H. W. Riley of Calgary, who received $25,889. [DOT]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That was in connection with the western Canada bread case which lasted 100 court days.


John George Diefenbaker: And then there was Mr. G. R. Hunter of Winnipeg, who received $12,707. What was that for?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That included the wire and cable inquiry and the inquiry into the alleged Winnipeg bread combine.


John George Diefenbaker: That was just an inquiry?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that was an inquiry resulting in a report which was duly tabled, and so on.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no prosecution in that case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, there was no prosecution. I think my hon. friend is familiar with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: If the hon. member for Lake Centre has finished his questions on this item, perhaps I might interrupt for a moment to suggest that the Minister of Resources and Development has available certain information which the hon. member for Lake Centre wished to have.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the information that the Minister of Resources and Development has, may I make the following suggestion? When the minister gives that information I should like to have it placed in Hansard just before the noon

Supply-J ustice
adjournment so it will be in order, and not separated from the discussions this morning.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: The committee earlier gave unanimous consent to this procedure.
(See page 5368).
166. Administration, $100,925.
Yukon territorial court-
Judge's salary and travelling allowance (chapter 56, statutes of 1946, as amended), $15,900.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is the judge presiding over this court? How is he appointed? Is he ad hoc or permanent?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is Mr. Justice John Gibben. He is permanent.


John George Diefenbaker: An excellent judge.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Is he appointed as a superior court judge?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, the same as a superior court judge in a province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Other courts-
(S). Judges' salaries and travelling allowances (chapter 56, statutes of 1946, as amended), $3,548,200.
William Joseph Browne: I notice that in the province of Newfoundland there is provision for $8,000 as the salary of a district court judge. No district court judge has been appointed in the last four years. Is an appointment to be made this year? Has the minister any information on that point? I notice that the premier and the attorney general have been travelling back and forth to Ottawa frequently in the last four years. They were here this week. Can the minister give us any information on this point?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think it was last year or the year before when, in response to a similar point raised by the hon. member, it was pointed out that the case load of the superior court in Newfoundland of cases which would fall within district court jurisdiction, if it were staffed with judges, had been fairly low. It has been represented to me recently, however, that the case load would increase if the facilities were available. I think most of us would agree with that. Although I would not necessarily say there would be five judges, I would be hopeful that some appointment might be made fairly soon.
Combines Investigation Act-
170. Restrictive trade practices commission, $82,150.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to make a few
comments which would be appropriate under items 170 and 171, both of which deal with the Combines Investigation Act. I would have made them in the discussion on the first item if the subject matter had not been changed several times, after the hon. member for Lake Centre had spoken.
First of all I should like to correct an inference that might seem to be involved in the last question I put to the minister yesterday morning. I think the minister has cleared the matter up in his reply today to the hon. member for Lake Centre; but, as I say, there is an inference that I believe should be corrected. In the exchange that took place yesterday morning I concluded with this question:
Is the minister satisfied that after the coming election we will not find out something similar to what we found the last time?
This was the minister's reply:
If that is what my hon. friend is worrying about,
I am completely satisfied.
It would look as though I had trapped the minister into saying that he was satisfied that we would not find out anything after the next election.


John George Diefenbaker: You may have been right the first time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is only fair to assume from what the minister said this morning-and if there is any doubt about it he can confirm it-that he means more than is implied in that answer. I trust he means that there is no report required by the act to be published which has not been published.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. I certainly intended to convey that impression; and if there is any question about it I confirm it now, that there is no report required by the act to be published which has not been published except the report which I have already mentioned and which will be published within the required time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to have that point cleared up. The minister might now be able to answer the other question for me, which he was not in a position to answer when the orders of the day were called, as to whether or not the commissioner has made any reports to the minister, with the advice of the commissioner that the reports should not be published. As I said yesterday, section 19 (3) of the act makes provision for a report of that kind, whereupon it is left to the discretion of the minister as to whether or not any such report shall be published.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would like my hon. friend to repeat that question. I am afraid this is another of his trap questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not trying to trap the minister. He seems to be terribly worried about being trapped. Of course I do not blame him, after what happened in 1949.


John George Diefenbaker: It was not a question of trapping in 1949.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was questions on the orders of the day, down here, that brought it out all out in 1949. However, section 19 (3) of the act-although I do not have it before me-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have it here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -provides that the commissioner shall make reports to the minister; and if he does not advise against their publication the minister must publish them. But there is also an additional provision-and the minister is looking right at it now- whereby the commissioner may recommend or suggest that in his opinion the public interest would be better served by not publishing the report. Even so, it is still at the discretion of the minister to make public such reports, if he wishes to do so, despite the advice of the commissioner. Have any reports of that kind been made to the minister?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I will word this in my own way, if I may. Section 19(3) reads:
Any report of the commission shall within thirty days after its receipt by the minister be made public, unless the commission states in writing to the minister it believes the public interest would be better served by withholding publication, in which case the minister may decide whether the report, either in whole or in part, shall be made public.
My answer-and it is already on the record -is that I have never received either from the restrictive trade practices commission, since the amendment, or from the commissioner before the amendment, any report as to which the commissioner or any person else has stated he believed that the public interest would be better served by withholding publication. In other words I have not received any report in which it was necessary for me to decide whether I would overrule the view of the commissioner or the restrictive trade practices commission. Does that answer my hon. friend to his complete satisfaction?
Supply-J ustice


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Whether the minister believes he answered it before or not, at least his answer is now clear to all of us.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre this morning. While I disagreed with his contention, which he has made on previous occasions, to the effect that there were certain instances when, in his view, reports should not be made public, at least in all fairness it must be said that he indicated he was in a minority in respect to that view.
I was also glad to hear him say he felt that the penalties for violation of the Combines Investigation Act, particularly in respect of large corporations, should be made more severe. When the Minister of Justice pressed the hon. member for Lake Centre as to what he meant by something better or something more effective than fines, the hon. member for Lake Centre suggested imprisonment.
I was not at all surprised to hear the retort of the Minister of Justice that you cannot put corporations in jail. But it seems to me that is a loophole that has been employed a little too often with respect to this matter.
I remind both the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Lake Centre of the fact that this question was discussed to some extent on June 11, 1952, when we had last year's amending legislation before us. On that occasion the hon. member for Eglinton actually objected to the removal of the alternative of a fine in certain cases where either a fine or imprisonment had been set out in the act. The hon. member for Eglinton was satisfied with the explanation of the Minister of Justice that that was provided for in the Criminal Code, and that after all you could not put a corporation in jail.
As I say, the discussion is there in some detail on June 11, 1952, and I need not repeat it now. But as the minister knows, one of the members of this group on occasion has put a private member's bill on the order paper trying to tighten up the penalties, and we certainly take the position that there should not be loopholes to make it possible for directors of corporations, who really are responsible for infractions of the Combines Investigation Act, to get off with fines even though they may amount to many thousands of dollars. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Lake Centre supporting that view today, even if he is one of only a few in his party who take that position.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I can answer my hon. friend very briefly. The reference on page 25 to identical tenders with regard to street paving material and fuel for city vehicles is a quite distinct and separate matter from this other question about wire and cable. As I think my hon. friend knows-I believe he referred to it on a previous occasion-the city of Winnipeg was one of the complainants with regard to the wire and cable matter. It was to consider complaints made by them and other complainants that the appointment of Mr. H. Carl Goldenberg was made by order in council about May 1, 1952. He is acting as a commissioner in a judicial capacity in that case, and therefore I am not in his confidence about what he is considering, but I would be very surprised indeed if he was not considering the very figures my hon. friend has referred to. The great likelihood is that they are part of the case that is before him. I really have no doubt on that score. I have to preserve a judicial calm because he is considering the case, and when his report comes to me I will have to remain judicial in relation to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without disturbing the minister's judicial calm, may I put this question to him. What are the mechanics of this situation? If the minister is in doubt whether Mr. Goldenberg is considering these figures, as Minister of Justice should he not draw them to his attention?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there is any doubt at all but that he is considering them. I cannot make the positive statement that he is considering them because when we appoint a man under an order in council to consider a matter of this kind we cannot sit looking over his shoulder watching every move he makes. He acts in a judicial capacity but, having regard to the fact that the complaint
Supply-Justice
of the city of Winnipeg was one of the matters that occasioned his appointment in the first place, it would be extraordinary if he did not have the figures before him.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I think in all fairness to the companies tendering we must consider that they are reasonably smart people and that they do not do foolish things. We should remember that the machines which make this wire are all bought from the same people, and that while shortages of vital materials existed the supply of copper came from the same place for each. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows better than anyone else that labour conditions in all companies which manufacture electrical wire and cable are identical. They are set. Therefore it is logical to assume that the cost of the material will be the same within a fraction of a mill.
I do not think anyone would suggest that these men would be stupid enough to tender at the same price if there was a combine. If there was a combine they would decide which company would get the tender and that company would be low while all the others would be high. I do not think that because they all tendered at the same price that indicates at all that they have combined together to set prices. They are too smart for that.
I am absolutely certain that if four or five of the presidents of large companies which manufacture electrical cable were to combine together and tender they would be clever enough to say that company A would get the tender and that all the rest would tender at some higher price. This industry has now become so well organized that their prices are within a fraction of a mill of each other. Their materials are all controlled, and the machines which manufacture the goods are bought from the same company at the same price. There is no reason why there should be any difference in their prices.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to let the table I put on the record speak for itself. It is beyond my capacity to visualize how anyone can look at those identical prices across the board for three items from six different companies and imagine that there was not a getting together in some way. The hon. member for Wellington South suggests that these people are too smart for that sort of thing. I think they have outsmarted themselves.


William Joseph Browne: I would like to ask one question. Is there any follow up after a commission report that there have been unfair practices, even where there have been prosecutions? I am thinking of the

Supply-J ustice
optical people, and I remember Mr. McGregor's finding in that case. I read it very carefully and noted the very high profits that seemed to be made by those concerned. However, I have not seen any reduction in the price of glasses. Has there been any follow up?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question about the administrative set-up. We have two items here, the restrictive trade practices commission and the office for investigation and research. Am I correct in my understanding that Mr. MacDonald's position is that of the director of investigation and research and that Mr. Rhodes Smith is chairman of the restrictive trade practices commission?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the minister a question a while ago and he was going to give me an answer. What prosecutions have taken place since December, 1951, under the amendments passed at that time relating to resale price maintenance? How many prosecutions have taken place, by provinces, and how many convictions were registered?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, there have been no prosecutions under that section.


Mrs. Fairclough:: May I ask the minister how many replies were received to the questionnaire which went out with regard to loss-leader selling?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. MacDonald tells me that there were quite a large number, but we cannot give you the exact number.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Can you make any estimate of the percentage of those solicited who replied?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Some of these inquiries went to single individuals and some went to groups. Therefore it would be difficult to arrive at an estimate of the percentage. Mr. MacDonald says that he feels there has been very good co-operation in the matter of sending replies back.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I might comment, Mr. Chairman, that the difficulty is probably no greater than that of attempting to define a loss leader. Has the department taken any steps toward analysing the replies received?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
175.	To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of
Canada, $104,305.
IMr. Browne (St. John's West).]
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister yet in a position to tell us when those volumes will be available?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, they should be available some time this fall. We have a problem there in connection with the date of the election, because in the proclamation of the coming into effect of the revised statutes we have to take care that the election law is not disturbed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought perhaps you could tell us the date of the election at the same time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries-
176.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $35,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $346,452.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this subject has been discussed at length previously, and I do not intend to take up any particular time in discussing it now. However, I should like to ask one or two questions and say a word regarding Mr. Gibson, the commissioner, and the board that is associated with him.
When the commission was set up a couple of years ago there were some who had misgivings about whether it would be successful and able to carry out the principles by which it was to be guided. I think that commission has done the most advanced and outstanding work for penitentiary reform that has ever been done in this country in a similar period of time, if ever at all. It has been a remarkable success.
When Mr. McCulley retired he received letters from the inmates of various penitentiaries that indicated something of the respect and attention which the inmates had for him, and with him I associate the other members of that commission. They have done a remarkable work not the least of which has been the encouragement of the alcoholics anonymous organization. What has been achieved is beyond words of praise. I know of several prisoners who ascribed their conviction of the crimes with which they were charged to the excessive use of alcohol. Several of these men have become leaders in the organization now that they have been discharged from the penitentiary. I certainly am hopeful there will be a permanent reduction in recidivism in consequence of the work that has been done in connection with rehabilitation.
I feel, too, that mention should be made of the fact that the salary rates for penitentiary guards are not in keeping with the responsibility that rests upon them. I am not

here for the purpose of advocating expenditures when they ought not to be advocated. I have not done that. Having regard to the quality of the warders and other officials of the penitentiaries, I believe that the rate of salary today is not in keeping with the dignity of their position and the vast opportunities for service and rehabilitation that are in their custody. I would appreciate hearing from the minister what consideration has been given to assuring the maintenance of the present high standard of personnel in the penitentiary service and what, if anything, has been considered by the department as necessary to be done in raising salaries in order to assure that the very best men are secured for this work.
No longer are warders-I call them warders-merely physical custodians of human beings. They are becoming more and more the custodians of the future of those who come into their custody. Punishment has its place, but rehabilitation is something which is of vast importance. I feel that as a result of the reforms that have been made in the last two or three years there is a possibility that there will be a pronounced reduction in the number of prisoners who will return after having served one term. After all, that means a tremendous saving to the Canadian people, and it means as well that the penitentiaries are no longer, as often they have been in the past, breeders of further crime.
The institution of these reforms in recent years following the recommendations of the Archambault commission has done a great deal to rehabilitate the souls of men broken in consequence of having served a term of penal servitude. They have an opportunity today to go forth into the world trained and even inspired to change their way of life. I know a number of those who have personally communicated with me have been given a message of hope by the reforms instituted in recent years, which deserve the commendation and approval of all the Canadian people.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to say a few things to the minister, and I shall not take very long doing so. First of all, I never was in a jail or penitentiary until I became a member of parliament. I thought it my duty to try to find out something about prisons, and I believe our Canadian system is fairly good. It has improved a lot. Through the kindness of General Gibson and the previous minister of justice, I have been able to visit different prisons in Canada and compare them in my own way. I have visited prisons in Britain and other places, and made quite a study of the problem. I believe the department is doing a good job.
Supply-J ustice
During the discussion of these estimates last year I spoke about the wages of the guards, and was told that their wages had been doubled. I know that was a truthful statement, but the minister would have been ashamed to tell the people what the guards received before their wages were doubled. I am not going to dwell on that, but I do say that the guards are not being paid enough. You are asking for a higher grade of man now. You do not hire the old imperial sergeant major who set out to break the prisoners' hearts. You now require the type of man who studies his prisoner with reform as his object, in the hope the prisoner will become a good citizen and will not return to the penitentiary.
I do not want to be prejudiced, but may I say that I consider Stony Mountain to be one of the best penitentiaries. I believe the discipline at Stony Mountain is better than anywhere else. I shall let it go at that. However, you are losing the guards to the Winnipeg police force and the Winnipeg fire department because they are not being paid enough money. These fellows have asked for the five-day week because everyone is getting the five-day week. If you want to hold these men you have to treat them in the way other people are treating their men. I believe I asked about the five-day week last year and the minister said that if it could be accomplished without increasing the expenditure it would be all right. It cannot be done because if you change from a 44-hour week to a 40-hour week it is admitted that you have a 10 per cent increase in expenditure.
1	believe the money would be well spent.
I am sure the'minister knows the Manitoba telephone system has given its employees a five-day week. I believe this practice is general all over the country. I think the minister should give the matter further consideration, and should give them the five-day week if he is going to keep the men he has and carry out the program he has started.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to comment briefly upon the points raised by the two hon. members who have last spoken. I do not mind disclosing what the guards' salaries were in 1945. They ranged from $1,200 to $1,500. For grade 1 guards in 1952 the ranges were from $2,424 to $2,784; for grade
2	guards, from $2,700 to $2,988. Of course that is plus uniform and one meal. They have a five and a half day week. I think those figures fairly well speak for themselves. If any hon. members are interested in how fairly the other officers of the penitentiaries are paid, they will find all of them set out

Supply-J ustice
in detail on pages 15 and 16 of the penitentiaries report.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister give us the turnover?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think I can in just a moment. But before doing so, may I say that the hon. member for Selkirk has put his finger upon one of the most important points, namely that we do now seek as guards men of intelligence and compassion who are willing to make a career of serving their fellow men in this most important service.
To both hon. members who have spoken I want to express my appreciation for the compliments which they have paid to the staffs of our penitentiaries under General Gibson, Dr. Gendreau and their colleagues. As minister, I can vouch that the compliments are well deserved.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has not given the figure as to turnover. I listened to the remarks made by my colleague and the hon. member for Selkirk and I picked up the two words used by the minister, namely "intelligence and compassion". I do not think any better words could be used. It seems to me that, as my colleague has said, it is extremely important that, if we get men of that kind, we make it possible for them to stay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
177.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $8,218,403.
Mr. Catherwood:: I should like to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Selkirk, because I think their stand was well taken. I am glad to note that the minister was in agreement with what they said.
There is one matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, namely the provision of central places of execution. I know this matter is probably one of provincial concern but to the members of the committee studying the Criminal Code I believe representations were made that central places of execution should be set up in the various provinces.
In the part of the country in which I live an execution was carried out at the local prison in December, 1951. It was an extremely regrettable situation as far as the whole community was concerned. The town council, meeting in session that evening, passed a strong resolution condemning the present

system and urging that central places of execution be set up. I think that suggestion should be seriously considered. It is something which concerns the people in every community, particularly those in rural parts of Canada where situations arise such as that to which I have referred. Everyone, I feel, is concerned about this matter, and it is a most undesirable situation, particularly for our younger generation across this country. It was pointed out editorially by the Simcoe Reformer, a prominent newspaper in that section of the country, that a central point of execution should definitely be set up in order that communities would be spared the harrowing experiences that result from these executions that take place in the local gaols.
I feel strongly on this point, Mr. Chairman. I know it is a feeling that exists in all rural areas. I trust that the minister will use his influence to see whether this situation can be changed. I know it would meet with general approval if something could be done in the matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point my hon. friend has just raised is a matter that comes entirely under provincial jurisdiction. They make all those arrangements. They are never made in our penal institutions. They are arranged for in the provincial gaols, by the provincial people, and we have nothing to do with it.


A. Earl Catherwood: I realize that fact, as I have already pointed out, Mr. Chairman. But I was wondering whether the minister would use his influence with the provincial authorities to see whether something could be done, because I know it is a matter of great concern especially to so many people.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. To reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood, may I say that last year, 1952-53, out of a total staff of 1,560 there were 106 resignations and 7 dismissals, or a total of 113. That is about 6 or 7 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That does not seem to be very discouraging. Is that better or worse than previously?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it is fairly uniform.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Customs and excise divisions-
294. General administration, $2,177,924.
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, as has been my custom, I should like to give a brief explanation of the estimates now before the house in connection with this department. These

estimates are intended to cover the operation of the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue. This division consists of the central administration, some 224 customs and excise ports and approximately 108 outports and other offices.
The division administers the Customs Tariff, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and portions of some 40 other acts. The staff assigned to ports and outports are responsible for the examination and appraisal of imported goods; assessment of duty and taxes and collection thereof; the examination of vehicles, aircraft, train and ship traffic both for goods carried and passengers and crews; the assessment and collection of excise duty, excise taxes and sales tax on domestic goods; the supervision of customs bonded warehouses and all licensed excise establishments and the administration of the laws mentioned above and the regulations made thereunder.
From headquarters and the ports, special branches conduct audits, inspections, investigations, drawbacks and refunds.
During the past fiscal year the department collected, by way of revenue, $1,590 million, an increase of $138 million over the previous year. A further increase in the revenue collected is expected during the 1953-54 fiscal year, and this is reflected in our collections during the months of January, February and March, 1953, which show an increase of $8,594,000, $15,380,000 and $8,735,000 respectively, or a total of $32,710,000 over the corresponding three months last year.
International travel, particularly by highway, continues to increase. Foreign vehicles entering Canada on travellers' permits in the month of March totalled 71,600, an increase of 15 per cent over the previous year and a new record for the month. The gain in the first quarter was 15 per cent.
After taking into consideration the additional $200,000 which the department expects to recover from parties accommodated for special services, this year's estimates provide an increase of $823,789. This amount is made up of such items as salaries; overtime; travelling expenses; postage stamps; office stationery, supplies and equipment; customs excise stamps and labels; light, power and water charges, etc. Of this, salaries, wages and overtime account for approximately 85 per cent. Customs excise stamps and labels necessary due to increased production, and office stationery, supplies and equipment account for an additional 8 per cent, with the remaining 7 per cent made up of other items.
68108-341i
Supply-National Revenue
Hon. gentlemen will see from this that of the appropriations we ask for here, 85 per cent plus 8 per cent, or in other words 93 per cent, are entirely for wages and supplies. As hon. members understand, our department is entirely an administrative department. It is not a matter of new projects which call for additional expenditures, except to a small extent.
In order to give adequate service to the importing and travelling public and to properly protect the revenue, it was found necessary to increase the total establishment at ports and outports across Canada by approximately 2 per cent during the past year. However, during the same period the increase in revenue has been over 9 per cent and the increase in international traffic even greater. In addition to this we have had to increase our audit staff, both for protection of the revenue and for better service to the taxpayers, by more frequent audits. Every effort is also being made to obtain and train sufficient additional customs appraisal staff to cope with the growing problem of foreign values investigations.
The primary covering construction and acquisition of land this year shows a slight decrease over last year. In this connection I would like to say that the projects envisaged for the coming year are projects which have been regularly deferred until they are now of some urgency.
I shall be pleased to answer any questions that may arise in connection with the administration of the proposed expenditures.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: I want to say a few words about the farm income tax inspectors.


James Joseph McCann: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I might explain to the hon. gentleman that we are now dealing with the Department of National Revenue. There are two divisions, customs and excise, and taxation, with two deputy ministers and complete staffs. Therefore it is much more convenient to deal with them one at a time. At this time we are dealing with customs and excise, and when we finish it we shall deal with taxation.


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the minister announce when he begins to deal with taxation?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to make a few brief remarks. Perhaps the chairman and the minister will say that this comes more properly under the taxation division, but it will not take more than a minute or two, anyway. We should compliment the minister for the way in which the work has been caught up so that delays no

Supply-National Revenue longer occur; and also the appeal boards, so far as I can discover, are working well.
I want to come now to excise. I want to refer to the smuggling of cigarettes that is going on. I am not going to labour the point. I was appalled by the number of seizures that had been made, which I mentioned earlier in the afternoon on the estimates of the Department of Justice, but I want to raise it now for a different purpose. The figures I have show that for the year ended March 31, 1952, 67,000 seizures of cigarettes were made and in the succeeding year, ended March 31, 1953, almost twice as many, or 115,000.
Is any attempt being made to calculate the cost of that? I am not familiar with police work, but obviously this is caused by the fact that cigarettes are so much cheaper in the United States than they are in Canada owing to the difference in taxation. I am not going to ask the minister to give me that figure now, but I am going to suggest to him that it ought to be done. It has not been done. In so far as it can be done, an attempt ought to be made to get an idea of what is the expense. There must be a huge expense involved in trying-very unsuccessfully, incidentally-to have the law kept. Has the minister ever attempted to get at a figure of the losses in taxes on the one hand, and on the other hand the expense which has been incurred? If the minister tells me he has no figures on that-


James Joseph McCann: I do not think it would be possible even to estimate the loss in the matter of taxes. I agree with the hon. gentleman when he says or implies that one of the reasons for the great amount of smuggling of cigarettes is the difference in price between United States cigarettes and Canadian cigarettes, brought about in part by taxation. However, I am glad to report that for the first three months of 1953, at least for January, February and March, the number of seizures has decreased considerably. I am speaking only of cigarettes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says the first three months of 1953?


James Joseph McCann: Yes. For instance, in January there were 198 seizures of cigarettes, in February 171 and in March 157. As the hon. gentleman and the committee realize, the reduction in taxes did not take place until the month of February, so that any reduction as a result of that would be shown in the figures say of April and May to a greater extent than they would immediately following the change in the tax rates.
fMr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister let me interrupt him? There must be some extraordinary difference in the figures as between us, because the figures I was given by the R.C.M.F. for the year ended March 31 were 115,000.


James Joseph McCann: Seizures of what?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That would be about 10,000 a month.


James Joseph McCann: Seizures of what?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Of cigarettes.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member is wrong on that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I gave the figure. Let us get back to this now. I have here the R.C.M.P. report for 1953 and in the report are given the customs seizures for
1951-	52. The cigarettes are given as 67,000. It gives columns of seizures. I asked the R.C.M.P. for the corresponding figure for the succeeding year and they gave me 115,000. Is there some first-class misunderstanding between me and them?


James Joseph McCann: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is talking about all the seizures made of smuggled goods right across Canada in that period, or is he speaking of the number of cigarette seizures, individual seizures, or is he speaking of quantities?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here is the table. It is headed "customs seizures." There is a list of autos, beer, rum, cigars and cigarettes. For cigarettes the total given here is 67,000. That looked to me to be a tremendous figure. I spoke to the R.C.M.P. about it. If we are going to waste time on these figures -it is now twenty minutes to six-would it not be more sensible to go on with taxation?


James Joseph McCann: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very good. I am trying to facilitate things. I am suggesting that we should look at these figures, and if there is any misunderstanding between us we can resolve it during the dinner hour.


James Joseph McCann: Here are the seizures involving cigarettes and the quantities seized during the fiscal years from 1941-42 to 1952-53. In 1945-46 there were 1,957 seizures. That involved 1,487,955 cigarettes. Then they went up, and have been going up gradually ever since. In 1950-51 there were 2,072 seizures of cigarettes, involving 4,606,000 cigarettes. In 1951-52 there were 3,271 seizures involving 14 million cigarettes. In
1952-	53 there were 3,042 seizures involving 25 million cigarettes.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of an experience the minister and I had. I refer to the seizure of a taxicab. I think the law is pretty drastic in this respect.
The case in point is that of a young fellow about 20 years of age who, when driving his taxicab, picked up three passengers, who placed baggage in the compartment of his car. He went a short distance and was spotted by the mounted police. They examined the luggage in his trunk and found liquor. Charges were laid against the passengers, and they paid a penalty. No charge was laid against the driver, but his car was seized and was tied up for about six or seven months.
This boy has lost his earnings during that period of time. He has had no income, and has been waiting for his car. The local mounted police tell me that the matter is in the hands of authorities in Ottawa. I cannot understand why there should be this long delay in coming to a decision.
It seems to me the law is unfair in that it places the taxi driver in the position where he must search the luggage of each passenger he picks up, if he wishes to protect himself from this sort of thing. Then, it should not take such a long time to have a decision made. I had to get in touch with the minister. After that the minister had to have an order in council passed to release the car. The boy was fined $100 to have his car returned, despite the fact that no charge had been laid against him in a court.
I suggest someone should review this law and try to have some machinery which would work somewhat faster and would not penalize a man who makes his living by driving a taxicab, simply because someone gets into his car and leaves liquor there. Surely this is not justice. Not only did he pay the fine, he lost six months wages while waiting for his car. He paid a large sum in legal fees trying to have the car released. Finally, in desperation, he came to the old chiropractor. Of course once the minister and I got together we straightened it out.
This man was heavily penalized. Someone should take a look at this law and see if it can be straightened out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-
299. General administration, $2,491,778. (Translation):
Mr. Courtemanche:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the proceedings unduly-
(Text) :


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
Item stands.
Supply-National Revenue


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, will you call the supplementary items in respect of customs and excise?
Ports, outports and preventive stations-
688. Operation and maintenance, further amount required, $235,580.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps this question should have been asked during the general discussion. However, I would point out that recently on the west coast there have been complaints to the effect that the Japanese have been shipping in totem poles to be sold in competition with those produced by the native Indians. I understand these are not marked "made in Japan". Would the minister look into this matter, and tell us if it is permissible for shipments of that kind to be made into the country without having the country of origin marked thereon?


James Joseph McCann: This matter has not come to our attention. Only such things as are specified need to be marked under the marking act. Totem poles are not included.


Howard Charles Green: These are not the real totem poles. They are souvenirs. A hardship is being worked on the local Indians.


James Joseph McCann: The ones I have seen have been marked "made in Japan."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-
299. General administration, $2,491,778.
Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about the farm income tax inspectors, or as they are better known, the income tax snoopers.
In 1949, just before the last election, the house was informed that the Department of National Revenue had no inspectors or enforcement officers, but that they did have an intelligence branch which had officers stationed in most of the provinces, with an extra 17 stationed in Ottawa for service anywhere. At that time there was a total of 54 officers. Twenty-three were in Ontario, three in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, two in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, one in Manitoba and none in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
I do not know whether or not the questions asked in 1949 gave the government ideas, but in answer to a question which I asked I found out that we now have income tax inspectors in every province of Canada, and in greatly increased numbers. There are now four times the number of snoopers there were in 1949, despite the fact that farm income has dropped and there are fewer farms. I am quite sure that many of these farms became vacant and many of the farmers
5400	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue reduced production due to the prying of these snoopers. The loss of our markets may be indirectly due to the farmers becoming discouraged because of the treatment they received from this department.
We now have a total of 234 income tax inspectors assigned to check the farmers. They cost the taxpayers of Canada $926,433.30, and I am not sure that their activities bring in enough extra money to pay their salaries. Certainly the strain they put on the farmer is doing nothing to bring about the increased production which this government begs from the farmer. The farmer needs encouragement, not hounding.
It is also interesting to note the way in which these snoopers are placed. In Ontario there are 56 full-time inspectors and 9 parttime. Saskatchewan has 51 and Alberta 46 of these costly employees. There are 27 in Manitoba, but only 13 in Quebec. Where there were none in Nova Scotia in 1949, there are now 11. Prince Edward Island, without any in 1949, now has 2. New Brunswick and British Columbia each have 7. Even Newfoundland now has one part-time.
I would like the minister to say if he considers this money well spent. Does he consider the hounding which these snoopers give to the farmers is in the best interest of Canada?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, before I
answer the hon. member I suggest that, following the practice we have followed heretofore, I should make a brief statement with respect to the taxation division. I believe it would give the answers to many of the questions which have been asked. I have anticipated certain questions, and perhaps by making a statement we may save time.
I should like to make a few brief comments concerning the taxation division estimates which hon. members may find helpful in their considerations. At page 46 of the estimates it is indicated that the taxation division will require $23,427,269 to operate for the fiscal period 1953-54. This is a reduction of $4,943 from the last fiscal year. The estimate for the income tax appeal board is $116,553, which is $3,140 less than was provided in the last fiscal year.
During the twelve month period ended on the 1st of March, 1953, there were 4,338,510 individual returns received. During the same period there were 4,332,030 returns assessed. This represents roughly 300,000 more returns received during this period than were received during the preceding twelve months. The inventory, however, has remained relatively unchanged, being 41,780 as at the 1st 

of March this year compared with 36,651 at the same time last year.
With respect to corporation returns, during the twelve month period ended the 1st of March, 1953, 66,350 returns were received compared with 59,832 received during the preceding twelve months. The inventory this year at the end of this period was 19,323 corporation returns compared with 14,765 returns last year. As at May 4, 1953, the number of refunds issued to individuals who had filed their 1952 returns was 1,054,975 for a total of $52,377,315.
During the 1952-53 fiscal period the total of corporation, individual, and old age security taxes and succession duties collected by the division was $2,593,956,838. The administrative cost of collecting these taxes was 86 cents per $100 during the 1952-53 fiscal period compared with 98 cents during the 1951-52 fiscal period. As at the 1st of April, 1953, the full-time staff of the division was 5,918. At the same time last year the staff was 5,903. The total payroll provided for in these estimates is $20,066,489. In addition to the full-time staff there are approximately 800 temporary employees engaged during the filing period. The use of temporary employees during the filing period has been increased this year and will probably be increased further next year, as it indicates considerable savings can be achieved in this manner with regard to salaries.
As I have previously indicated when speaking about the taxation division's estimates, the number of full-time employees is less than is required. Hon. members can appreciate the difficulties that are encountered when trying to hire the highly qualified personnel necessary in the work of the division. As a matter of general interest, the district offices at St. Catharines, Sudbury, Kitchener, Windsor and Victoria are now in full operation. They have been brought in as new offices within the past year. Some of them were sub-offices. For instance, Kitchener used to be a sub-office of Hamilton but now it is a full fledged office.
With respect to the item for travelling and removal expenses amounting to $850,000, there is an increase of $150,000. Of this amount approximately $100,000 is represented by removal expenses. It is the policy of the division to transfer staff, more particularly senior staff, between offices. This occurs in the case of promotions resulting from national competitions and in cases where it may not be practicable to fill certain positions locally. A portion of this increase is also represented

by the cost of travel in connection with the examination of taxpayers' records in the field.
The item for public forms is $400,000 this year compared with $427,000 last year. Similarly, the two items for law costs are reduced from a total of $230,000 to $215,000. The item for office machine equipment of $100,000 in the district offices' vote is included to permit the division to continue to replace obsolete and worn-out accounting machines by up to date equipment. This will also permit the use of more modern methods of accounting.
The item of $41,000 indicated as "acquisition of housing accommodation" is required to complete housing at Whitehorse for the staff of the district office which will be moved there from Dawson city some time this year.
With respect to the income tax appeal board, 293 appeals were received in 1952 and 325 were disposed of by the board. As at approximately the 1st of April there were 138 appeals being dealt with.
I think perhaps I might answer the question of the hon. member for Frontenac-Add-ington with reference to the number of persons engaged in farm assessing in 1953. All told there are 220 permanent and 14 part-time people engaged in such assessing. Their numbers by provinces are as follows: Newfoundland, none; Prince Edward Island, 2; Nova Scotia, 11; New Brunswick, 7; Quebec, 13; Ontario, 56; Manitoba, 27; Saskatchewan, 51; Alberta, 46 and British Columbia, 7, making a total of 220. Expenditures for salaries and expenses of persons engaged in assessing returns of farmers have amounted to $926,000. I was asked by the hon. member if I thought the expenditure paid, and my answer is that I am sure it pays. I do not know that there are any further answers to be given to the hon. member.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven o'clock.
Taxation division-
299. General administration, $2,491,778.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to the minister's attention a complaint which I was asked to bring up in the house by the editor of one of the daily papers in my constituency. He is a personal friend, a political enemy, and a member of that almost
Supply-National Revenue extinct species known as a true-blue Tory.
I believe his complaint is justified.
On May 15 last year he commenced negotiations with the employees in his print shop with a view to signing a new agreement as to working conditions and wages. That agreement was signed on October 15 and included provision for increases reflecting $550.50 in retroactive income tax, back to the 15th of May. As soon as he completed the agreement he sent the $550.50 to the director of the taxation division at Vancouver. He received a receipt but also a wigging over the signature of the deputy minister in regard to not paying that income tax before.
I think that was most unfair, and I would like the minister to explain to me how it is possible to compute the income tax on an unknown amount three months before it is due. He was censured in this document for not paying the income tax at the due date. He did not know what the amount was until he actually concluded the agreement and knew what the retroactive payment was to be. He sent the money in, but got a letter back from the deputy minister wigging him for being late in his payment.
I would like to ask the minister how it is possible to compute income tax on an unknown amount three months before the agreement was completed.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I fully understand the complaint of the hon. gentleman. If he will give me the facts I shall get a report on it from either the Victoria or the Vancouver office.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Vancouver.


James Joseph McCann: Has it to do with deductions at the source?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. It was to be deducted from the salaries, but he did not pay that retroactive amount until it was agreed to on October 15. Apparently the inspector, whoever he was, thought the editor should have sent it in before. Although the inspector knew the facts he sent this letter, over the deputy minister's signature, informing the employer that he was liable for a penalty and that sort of thing. The editor was quite indignant, because he is the type of man who pays his bills promptly.


James Joseph McCann: If he does not comply with the law he is subject to penalty. The tax must be remitted on the 15th of the month following that in which the deductions are made.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He paid retroactive wages for May, June, July, August and September after the agreement and negotiations were
5402	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue completed on the 15th October. He did not know that he would have to pay retroactive wages until the agreement was reached. He then sent the money in but received a letter over the deputy minister's signature wigging him for not making the payment before.


James Joseph McCann: If you will be good enough to let me have the details I will see that you receive a satisfactory answer.
(Translation):


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Chairman, since the house seems desirous to finish its business tonight, I shall not take more time than necessary, because I want to co-operate; however I take this opportunity to speak about a matter which is the subject of a controversy at the present time: I mean the notorious Humphrys form, followed more recently by the Ross form.
I want to say to the minister that I am satisfied he is not responsible for the situation. However, the people do not know what to think about it. I wonder if the minister could urge upon the officers of his department not to give to the word "church" the materialistic interpretation that seems to be given to it now, namely that of a mere building. I have the impression that the 45 per cent of our people who are Catholics believe that the word "church" means more than just the church building itself. It also includes everything connected with the church, that is religion itself, religious activities and the maintenance of the means of worship. With the new form, which has been issued and of which I saw a facsimile yesterday in Le Droit-the Ross form-any receipt bearing the signature of a parish priest would seem to be systematically rejected. Any donation known as a charitable donation is rejected and only donations to welfare organizations, to the Red Cross or other similar organizations are accepted.
I wonder if the minister, in order to put an end to the abnormal situation now prevailing among Catholics, could not postpone this inquiry until next fall and then have a committee find a satisfactory formula agreeable to all.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I appreciate the attitude taken by my hon. friend opposite in expressing his views on this subject. I am happy to hear him admit that there is no bad faith on the part of the department and, as he has said, on the part of the minister.
I must nevertheless say that we are right in drawing to the minister's attention a rather regrettable situation. I admit that there is


no bad faith involved but I do think that the form adopted was not such as should have been sent to such a large number of our fellow citizens. I know that it is meant not only for those who belong to such and such a religious denomination nor for those of a certain racial group, but for everybody.
Nevertheless, since most of the citizens living in my constituency are French-speaking and Catholic I have received many representations from those who are sincerely convinced that they were complying with the rules and regulations laid down by the income tax division in sending in receipts obtained from their priest, believing -that it was the proper method to follow in regard to income tax.
I believe, as I said before, that it is not a case of bad faith. However, since the officials' attitude may always be wrongly judged, it seems to me that it would have been possible to send a somewhat different form, one which would have said, for instance: contributions to such and such organization are not deductible; only those contributions directly concerned with the maintenance of the church and its priest are considered as charitable donations. So that, when mistakes had been made, they could have been served with a formal notice requesting them to apply to their local income tax inspector in order to make the necessary adjustments and, in certain cases, an inspector could even have been sent to obtain further details. If that method had been adopted, all this fuss and bad publicity which the department does not deserve in any case, would have been avoided. The sending of this form comes at a very bad time for those who sit on this side of the house. However, I am not blaming the officers of the department, because I believe they have tried to do their duty as well as they could. Unfortunately, the method to which they have resorted has not given the results they expected. In my opinion, the minister and the officers of his department now realize that there might be other ways of securing the information they want.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Chairman, I want to join the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) in congratulating the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) for the fairness he has shown in dealing with this question. In the course of his remarks, the hon. member said that "any receipt bearing the signature of a parish priest seems to be systematically rejected". I would like to draw his attention to that point. In my estimation, he overdid it a little.
According to the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann)

in this house, it is not a matter of refusing to recognize the charitable donations to our parishes, regardless of the religious denomination of the clergymen and of the faithful, but rather to check, in the simplest possible way, the nature of those donations mentioned in the receipts annexed to income tax returns.
Like the hon. member for Ottawa East, I most earnestly and sincerely hope that the minister will be able to set up a system of investigation better suited to administrative purposes, in order to avoid the unfortunate misunderstandings which exist now and to which the newspapers referred recently.


Henri Courtemanche: If I intimated that receipts for charitable donations were not recognized as valid, I want to correct that impression. I meant that the public were under the impression that those receipts were being turned down. I did not say that the department was turning them down.
(Text):


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I am unable to reply in French to the hon. members who have spoken, but I understand that they have been speaking with reference to the matter of charitable donations. I want to have a word to say in that regard. The letters being sent to taxpayers by the Ottawa district office of the taxation division requesting details of the amounts claimed as charitable donations are not being sent solely to the taxpayers of any religious denomination or racial origin. That is the first point I want to make, that there is absolutely no discrimination.
The criterion for deciding to whom they are sent is the amount of their claim in relation to the income which they have reported, the number of dependents in the family and any indicated financial commitments of the taxpayer. While letters similar to those under discussion are not currently being sent by other district offices, those offices are taking other means to establish the validity of charitable donations. For example, one office has made extensive examination of church records in order to ascertain to what extent amounts contributed by individual members are recorded. Where it has been found that amounts contributed by a large number are not apparent from the church records, donation receipts have been questioned and in many cases the amount claimed has been disallowed in full.
Supply-National Revenue
It is apparent from the replies received to many letters sent by the Ottawa office that some taxpayers, and also some clergymen, are under the mistaken impression that the value of services contributed by a member to his church may be claimed as a donation for income tax purposes. While it might appear equitable to allow claims for such donations it would be necessary, if this were done, to treat an equivalent amount as income of the taxpayer who performed the services. If the amount contributed, including the value of the services rendered, was in excess of 10 per cent of the taxpayer's income the net effect of adding the value of his services to his income and allowing him to claim that amount as a charitable donation would be to increase his taxable income over the amount declared. Instead, where it is ascertained that the donations claimed include the value of services rendered, the amount so included is disallowed as a deduction.
To date the Ottawa office has sent letters to approximately 7,000 taxpayers and has received approximately 3,000 replies. On the basis of the replies received, more than 60 per cent of the cases have so far required an amendment to be made in the amount of charitable donations claimed. Increases in tax in the cases in which replies have already been received and adjustments are required have amounted in the aggregate to more than $40,000, or an average increase in tax per return adjusted of $25. Based on the results from the replies received to date, it would appear likely that the total increase in tax on this account will amount to more than $100,000 this year.
From the replies received to date, officials of the taxation division are of the opinion that only a very small percentage of the cases involved represent deliberate attempts on the part of the taxpayer to claim a greater deduction from his income than he is entitled to under the law. By far the largest percentage of the files reviewed to date indicate that the excessive claims made for charitable donations are the result of honest mistakes or ignorance of the law.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is my duty and the duty of the department to collect taxes where they are owing. This questionnaire was sent out with a view to getting clearer information, and to enable us to deal more equitably with the taxpayer than had we taken the position that nothing was to be allowed where we knew the amount claimed was not according to the law or was excessive. There has been considerable discussion in Ottawa, particularly in some parts of the press, in connection with this matter and I

Supply-National Revenue think, in all fairness, that if a little more consideration were given to what was being done there would be a lot less harsh criticism.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to raise a question with the minister which I think is of considerable importance and causes considerable difficulty. It is often difficult for taxpayers to know when they have made a binding arrangement with the department. For example, I can give two or three instances about which I have been told. I believe it was in 1949 that the act was revised and the name changed from the Income War Tax Act to the new name. After that there were cases where previous arrangements were entirely upset on the ground that the arrangements under the Income War Tax Act were not followed under the subsequent act. However, that is a matter of history; that is water that is over the dam. I do not think there are cases of that kind now.
Second, I have been told there were cases in connection with the accrued coupon interest on bonds-a matter which, incidentally, was dealt with by legislation this year-where arrangements made not only by the local office but sent on and approved in Ottawa were upset.
Third, I happened to run across a case myself recently where an arrangement which was made with quite seniop officers-certainly not with junior officers but with quite senior officers-and which had been carried out for a matter of a few years, was then upset and taken to the courts.
The question I want to ask the minister is this. I think it would be of help to all concerned if the minister were able to make a statement as to just what is the policy of the department. Does it mean that the only thing that is binding is an arrangement made by the minister or a deputy; or is it at a certain level, or does it affect certain types of arrangements? I feel that it is a great hardship to a taxpayer to make what he considers to be a settlement with the department and then find perhaps even years later-it is not always a matter of months but sometimes years-that the arrangement is not regarded as binding by the department.
I would be the last person to reprove zeal on the part of the department. On the other hand, surely there must be something of the ordinary practices that prevail as between individual citizens in making arrangements with each other. I am not suggesting that the parallel is absolute, but I think it might be of interest if the minister could give an answer to that question.


James Joseph McCann: I think the hon. member will realize that in the Income Tax Act and the
Income War Tax Act there are few discretions left to the minister. It is stated there in the law what course shall be followed. I want to indicate to him that there is no such thing in the department, as far as I know, as the making of individual arrangements with any taxpayer. I think perhaps if I put on the record this statement-and I have given the matter some attention-it may clear up the situation.
It occasionally happens that when a taxpayer or a group of taxpayers are reorganizing their business affairs or have a transaction in mind on which the tax implications are uncertain, they will confer with the officers of the taxation division for an indication as to the possible application of the revenue laws. This was particularly so when the Income War Tax Act was in force because of the number of discretionary powers which were required to be exercised in assessing income tax at that time.
It is well established by decisions of our courts that the opinions given by the taxation officers under these circumstances do not alter the effect of the law. The courts will not give effect to the opinions of the tax officers which are not correct. Similarly, it is well understood that such opinions do not hold good when there has been a subsequent amendment to the law touching on the subject matter in question.
Subject to the foregoing the taxation division does try to stand behind the opinions it has given, particularly where taxpayers have contracted obligations on the basis of the opinion given as to the tax liability.
The present policy of the taxation division is to refrain from giving written opinions as to tax liability regarding prospective transactions. The officers of the division will discuss the various aspects of the law that may apply to the transaction informally with the taxpayer without making any commitment on behalf of the department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to pursue the matter at length, but I must say that I am a little bit disappointed at what the minister said. First of all I want to remind the minister that under the act-I think it is section 126-there is still the widest discretion left to the minister really to introduce an entirely new set of considerations. I mean there is discretion for him to introduce practically non-technical and non-business considerations into the interpretation.
But to pass on from that, may I say that I think it is also true to say that, quite apart from indications given to people while in the

course of reorganizing their business-which is the case the minister has confined himself to-there must be a great many cases where the application of the act is not quite as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4, as in connection with cases of depreciation and things of that kind, where inevitably there must be some measure of discretion.
I say again, without pursuing the matter, I was hoping the minister might have gone a little bit further. His statement was so general and so tentative that it really does not give any help to any taxpayer. I had hoped that the minister might be more specific. Of course I cannot force the minister to say anything he does not want to say; but I think it would have been helpful if the minister could have added something to what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is
another matter about which I should like to say a few words. When I have finished what I wish to draw to the minister's attention, I hope that his tax-collecting officials will apply in this sphere the same zeal as he indicates they apply in some other spheres.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Telegram of Wednesday, April 22, 1953, which contains an article written and signed by Norman Campbell. In this article Mr. Campbell has quite a bit to say, but I shall quote only a few portions of it. He starts off by saying:
The Department of National Revenue, which collects Canada's income taxes, recognizes that in some cases political contributions are a necessary expense of doing business.
Some contractors-especially those on roads in one or two provinces-have told the department quite openly that they cannot stay in business unless they make political contributions.
Mr. Norman Campbell goes on to make reference to what is in the Criminal Code or in the Income Tax Act or is not in those statutes. Then he says:
However, it is provided that all necessary expenses of business may be deducted from taxable income. So despite the fact that the law does not recognize political contributions as a legitimate business expense, they have been allowed as deductible.
I ask that the next paragraph be noted in particular because it contains a statement allegedly made to the Telegram, and the statement is put within quotation marks. It is as follows:
An income tax official told the Telegram: "Road contractors say quite openly to us that they have to pay out perfectly good money to someone. You may be sure some latitude is given them. They say they couldn't stay in business otherwise."
Then Mr. Campbell goes on to say:
Political contributions are not classed as charity. The question National Revenue asks is this: "Are the contributions necessary to earn the income."
Supply-National Revenue Some people are embarrassed in answering this question, but the department concedes in some cases that political contributions are necessary to earn the income.
In some tax returns the political contributions may not be set forth as such. Indeed, it would be impossible to obtain a receipt for them in some cases. But nevertheless the deductions are smuggled into the returns.
I now want to say, Mr. Chairman, that already during the course of this session the minister has given an answer to certain questions which I put on the order paper and which arose out of this newspaper article. If he recalls giving me these anwers, he may wonder why I was not satisfied with the answers and why I do not let the matter go at that. Despite the answers given by the minister-which answers are quite categorical-it seems to me that in that article written by Mr. Campbell there are suggestions which indicate that somebody in the department has been talking about this matter, and which also indicate that there may be ways and means of getting around the regulations and the practices of the department. I asked the minister by means of order paper questions which appeared in Hansard on Wednesday, May 6, 1953, at page 4837, the following:
Does the Department of National Revenue, in some cases, recognize contributions made by contractors to a political party as a necessary business expense?
The answer of the minister was no. My second question was:
Are contractors, in some cases, allowed a deduction for corporation income tax purposes with respect to contributions made to a political party?
Again the answer of the minister was no. My third question was:
If so, how many contractors were allowed such deductibility in each of the last five years?
Of course the minister's answer to that was:
Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
I have no doubt that is the established policy of the department. After all, there is no provision in the act, so far as I know, for contributions to political parties to be allowed as deductible for income tax purposes; and knowing something of the rigidity with which the department administers the law, I have no doubt that they adhered to that rigidity in this case. But there are two things about this article by Norman Campbell which prompt me to raise the matter again. The first is the statement to which I drew particular attention when I was reading the article, to this effect:
An Income tax official told the Telegram: "Road contractors say quite openly to us that they have to pay out perfectly good money to someone. You may be sure some latitude is given them".
5406	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue
That suggests that this reporter was certainly convinced that something along this line was being done. The other point in that article by Mr. Campbell which makes me raise this again is the suggestion that:
In some tax returns the political contributions may not be set forth as such.
In other words, to use his own language, these political contributions "are smuggled into the returns" somehow. I should like to have the comment of the minister on this. I have no doubt that his reply as to whether or not this practice is allowed will be the same as that which he gave in Hansard on May 6, 1953, that it is not allowed; but I should like to know whether he is prepared to apply the same zeal that he applied a while ago to another question as to whether practices of this kind go on, in an endeavour to ferret out any cases such as these Mr. Campbell had in mind, cases such as this income tax official must have had in mind when he spoke in these terms to the reporter.


James Joseph McCann: My answer to the hon. gentleman's inquiry is just the same as the one I gave in the return. A man or a corporation may do what he likes with his own money, but for income tax purposes it is not a deductible expense. Any contribution he makes for political purposes is not a deductible expense, because it is not money spent to earn that income. I suggest to the hon. member that the author he has quoted is drawing on his imagination, and he could not substantiate the statements that he makes. That is a pretty broad statement; but in the eight years I have been connected with the department I do not know of any one single instance of that kind. It is true that they may have been claimed, but I do not know of any one single instance where contributions for political purposes have been allowed as an expense of doing business and have been deductible from their taxable income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has it ever been found that any contributions or any claims put in under other designations have been part of political contributions and therefore disallowed?


James Joseph McCann: Not that I know of. It may
have been tried, but I suggest to you that our assessment system is sufficiently efficient to detect that type of evasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister any idea as to who the official would be who would make the categorical statement that Mr. Campbell quotes in his article?


James Joseph McCann: Not the slightest, and I challenge the hon. member's offer to name him.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Before this item passes there are one or two things I


should like the minister to comment on. I should like to deal first with the finding of Mr. Justice Locke of the supreme court on April 15. It dealt with the Stanley Mutual Fire Insurance Company of New Brunswick and their claim that they were not required to pay income tax. That claim has been allowed. The decision was the unanimous conclusion of the supreme court.
As I understand it, down through the years this tax has been collected from mutual fire insurance companies. The situation is such that over the years, with the increasing amount of insurance placed by farmers and others interested in mutual insurance, the amount of risks has climbed a great deal, and the reserves that the mutual companies have been able to build up have been seriously curtailed because of the taxes. Therefore if any great losses occurred these companies would not be able to pay them because of the great amount of risk and taxes paid.
I have in my hand a report of the Westminster Township Mutual Insurance Company. This is the company with which my own farm buildings are insured. I find that for the year ended December 31, 1950, the company paid $966.11 in income tax. The net insurance in force on the same date was $6,680,205, and the balance on hand on December 31 was $58,391.46. It would seem to me that over the years taxation has reduced that balance to rather dangerous proportions. While the income tax department may have collected this tax legally, that does not make it right. I heard of a man who wanted a collecting agency to collect a bill. He went to the firm and said: "Now, I want you to collect this account. If you can't collect it by fair means, take legal proceedings." That is pretty well what the income tax department have done in this case. They have collected legally, but I would not say it was a fair tax.
In view of the fact that the supreme court have ruled that it was not right to collect the tax, will the department consider rebating or returning the moneys to these mutual insurance companies.? I wanted to look over the entire findings of the supreme court, but upon examination I found that they consisted of some 26 pages and it would cost me $7 to secure the document. I thought I could tell the minister all that was necessary about this particular item that I am interested in.
The other matter I wish to bring to the minister's attention deals with income tax levied against a veteran and his wife. The veteran is totally disabled. He is drawing total disability pension, and he was advised by the casualty section of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the matter. They gave him a letter, with instructions for tax use.

When the tax was paid in 1947 this man and his wife were assessed as single persons. I understand-and I am not certain of this; the minister will correct me if I am wrong- that in the revision of 1949 there were some changes made. But during the years 1947 to 1950 he and his wife were wrongly charged, and she has overpaid to the tune of $475. The department has refused to return this amount. In 1950 the income tax branch acknowledged that the couple were justified in claiming the exemption, and did not charge them for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52. In view of the fact that the pension received by the veteran is not earned income, I think this case should be looked into. I shall be glad to give the minister the details at a later time.
Then there is one other matter I would bring to his attention. During the latter part of the tax year, accountants file a large number of returns of their clients and this difficulty arises. I am glad the collector of income at London has seen fit to change his method; and when these returns are taken to the office I will agree they are taken at a time when many returns are being filed. However, the accountant is asked to turn in those returns, and is given no receipt for them. There may be 25, 50 or 100, as the case may be, with cheques attached to pay the tax. The accountant does not have even the scratch of a pen to show that he has made the return for his client.
Upon making inquiries I pointed out that they could be lost. I was assured that such was not the case. It has since been brought to my attention in respect of two cases that returns have been lost in some way or another. In view of the fact that a great deal of money is sometimes involved in these returns I think it is only fair and proper that individuals who cannot have returns assessed immediately should have a receipt in some form or another. I have suggested to the department that when an accountant takes down 25 or 50 returns, as the case may be, they should be duly recorded, and he should have a signature for the whole batch of them.


James Joseph McCann: The matter to which the hon. member for Middlesex East has referred has to do with a judgment of a judge of the supreme court with reference to the Stanley Mutual Fire Insurance Company. This is a mutual fire insurance company operating under a New Brunswick statute whereby it was required to set up certain reserves after the payment of its operating expenses and losses. The statute provides that the reserve fund-
-shall be the property of the insurer as a whole and no member shall have a right to claim any
Supply-National Revenue
share or interest therein . . . nor shall such fund be applied or dealt with by the insurer or the board other than in paying its creditors, except on the order of the governor in council.
The taxation division considered that the company was subject to income tax in respect of the amount added to the reserve in each year. The company appealed the assessment but conceded that it was taxable on the income earned by the investments in the reserve fund. The case reached the Supreme Court of Canada and it was held that the amounts accumulated by the company and added each year to the reserve fund were neither profits nor gains of the company, and hence not subject to income tax.
The hon. member will be interested to know that this decision-and we have to accept a decision of the supreme court- will be applied in respect of other mutual insurance companies for taxation years which have not yet been assessed or, if already assessed, are presently under appeal. It will, of course, be necessary that such other companies are operated in a manner which comes within the reasons for judgment of the supreme court, and each case will have to be considered on its own merits.
With respect to the veteran and his wife, if the hon. member will place the details of that case before us later, we shall be glad to look into it.
Then, concerning the complaint about the accountant in London-Mr. Fitzgerald-all he has to do is tabulate the list of returns he brings in, and he will receive a receipt.


Harry Oliver White: I wish to thank the minister for the answers he has given.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister has a reputation for taking great care in seeing that everything in his department is done just right, and because of that I have a high respect for him. Therefore he will hear with considerable concern, no doubt, the fact that I have been informed by men who are in a good position to know, I think, that in an area surrounding the town in which I live no less than $100,000 is taken out of the district every year by income tax officials under false pretences.
I am told the general method of doing this is to write to a farmer who seems to be fairly prosperous and tell him it has been discovered that he owes $4,000 more income tax. The farmer may write and ask on what grounds this additional levy is made, and he will receive a more or less evasive letter, but a letter which implies a threat. In a general way the farmer is given to understand that there is no use trying to avoid this further payment, and that the best thing
5408	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue for him to do is to send in the $4,000 and be done with it.
I have been given names of farmers who have been afflicted in this way; in fact farmers have given me their names, themselves. Yet they fear to have me use the names lest next year they will be victimized, persecuted and penalized in ways in which it seems the income tax officials in that particular area are becoming quite proficient.
All this may be wrong; it might not be soundly based; but I am sure the minister will be interested to know that that information has been given to me by men who have had wide experience.
I have a case to which the minister has given some consideration and concerning which he will be pleased to receive details so that he may be enabled to make an investigation. I refer to the case of Ralph Weston. The minister has been very sympathetic in his personal talks with me. I have the impression, however, that he has not been adequately informed even by those whose responsibility it was to give him accurate information. I propose to ask a few questions regarding this Ralph Weston case which will simplify the minister's problem in looking into it. Then probably when we come back he will tell us what he has learned about it.
The minister may wonder whether all I am saying is entirely correct, that is, whether I may have been misinformed. I will tell the minister about one experience concerning which I have documentary proof. This occurred in Cardston in 1951. The Cardston co-operative creamery was assessed for over $2,000 more than it owed in that year. I have here the letter which the income tax department wrote to the Cardston creamery. The Cardston creamery association was greatly concerned. They had their own auditor and their own income tax adviser, but in spite of everything they could do they could not get the sympathetic attention of the income tax officials in Calgary. They sent me a letter concerning the matter and I started to work on the case.
Mr. Scully was then in the minister's department. When I first mentioned the matter to him he was quite resentful. He was positive that the income tax officials would not make any such error. I probably was just about as sharp as he was about the matter, and he finally said in a pique that he would go to Calgary and find out. He went to Calgary and found that the Cardston co-operative creamery was exactly right, that they had been wrongly assessed for over $2,000 which, if they had let it go, would have constituted an absolute theft from the


Cardston creamery by the income tax department. Probably "theft" is a little too strong a word, but the department would have taken the money away from them without any justification. That is the kind of thing about which we are concerned.
It was while I was discussing the Cardston creamery matter that I was given the information which I have just given the minister concerning the amount of money mulcted from the area around Cardston every year. It is not the same people every year. It is different people, but there are enough there to enable the department to do a pretty good business in collecting money under false pretences. I am going to ask a number of questions which the minister may present categorically to his income tax officials.
First, did an inspector from the Calgary income tax office in November of 1950 inspect the books of Ralph Weston, building contractor of Cardston, Alberta?
Second, was the cause of that inspection the fact that Mr. Weston had complained to the Minister of National Revenue concerning the tax levied against him for the years 1944 and 1945?
Third, as a result of the complaint and the inspection was Mr. Weston refunded $60.72 for his 1944 return and $130.45 for his 1945 return?
Fourth, did that income tax official on that occasion raise any objection to Mr. Weston's method of keeping books? I think the minister will find that the answer there will be no.
Fifth, did the income tax department refrain from refunding on Mr. Weston's income tax until after the said inspector had personally inspected Mr. Weston's books and verified Mr. Weston's claims? The answer to that question will be yes. No amount of effort by Mr. Weston had been sufficient to bring the Calgary officials to a sympathetic consideration of his case until the inspector actually came right to his office, inspected his books and found, as was found in the case of the Cardston co-operative creamery, that Weston was right and the income tax officials were wrong.
Sixth, has Mr. Weston been filing income tax returns regularly since 1941? I think the minister will find the answer there is yes.
Seventh, during all those years has Mr. Weston once been delinquent in filing his income tax returns? I think the minister will find the answer there will be no.
Eighth, was he ever during those years delinquent or negligent in paying his income

tax? I think the minister will find the answer there will be no.
Ninth, during those years did Mr. Weston have trouble in respect of assessments at least once? I think the minister will find the answer there will be yes.
Tenth, in how many other years did Mr. Weston have trouble with assessments? The minister will find that the answer is several.
Eleventh, did an income tax official early in October, 1952 call on Mr. Weston to see Mr. Weston's books and had Mr. Weston had any notice that an income tax official was coming to see his books on that date?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest that this is not the place at all for that type of question. I can tell the hon. member now that I have no intention of answering these questions here even if I knew the answers. I am precluded from discussing or revealing to the public the private business of any taxpayer, and if I answered these questions I would be divulging information which I am sworn not to divulge. If the hon. member has particular cases concerning which he desires information the department will be very glad to supply it so far as it can.
Some of these questions the hon. member is asking have to do with matters concerning which I have spent a good deal of time with the hon. member in discussing them personally. I have done everything possible over the past year or two to adjust these cases satisfactorily within the law. I think we are only wasting time in having a series of questions which the hon. member answers himself. We want to conduct our business and get it finished. It is most unfair to other members in the house if we are going to be held up in this manner.


John Horne Blackmore: If there is anything on which this house can afford to spend its time it is an abomination such as was committed against Mr. Weston. There is no doubt about that, and if the minister hesitates about giving the information I will give it.


James Joseph McCann: You can give it.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister does not need to worry about being scrupulous in that regard. I can very easily turn these questions into a speech, and I presume the minister will recognize that would be entirely in order. Therefore I think, all things being considered, it will be better if he allows me to proceed as I am doing now. I have endeavoured to be utterly fair with the minister but let us bear in mind that I also have to be fair with my constituents, with Alberta, and with
Supply-National Revenue Canada. If things like this are going on in the minister's department and he is unable to discover them, it is high time that he had adequate help and I am here to give it to him.
Was Mr. Weston under the necessity of being away from his office in order to supervise certain of his working crews engaged in constructing houses on the Blood Indian reserve, one crew 20 miles distant and another crew 38 miles distant? Did Mr. Weston therefore give his key to the inspector, show the inspector where his books were and leave the said inspector free to probe anything into which he desired to probe? I submit that you could ask for no better evidence of Mr. Weston's absolute integrity and honesty than the very fact that he did that without any warning at all, showing that he was conscious that he kept his books in shipshape condition all the time.
Did Mr. Weston have to chase to the Cahoon hotel the next morning in order to get his key back? No one needs to offer any suggestion as to what that indicates in respect of the income tax visitor.
Did the inspector on that occasion complain about Mr. Weston's bookkeeping and threaten to write Mr. Weston a "nasty" letter about Mr. Weston's bookkeeping?
Does Mr. Weston in his bookkeeping maintain records that show the following: (a) weekly time sheets for each employee listing days and hours per day; (b) weekly job sheets for each job listing workmen employed and hours worked per day for the week?
(c)	List the total wages earned by each workman in the calendar year by weeks, recording all deductions made and, where effective, travelling allowance.
(d)	Memorandum of materials used for each job.
(e)	Individual ledger record for accounts of customers.
(f)	All wages and expenditures other than petty cash items are made by cheque or accepted bank draft.
I shall not go any further. I think the answer to the question is yes, and I believe every person will recognize that a man who keeps all that has a pretty effective system of bookkeeping, whether the income tax inspector happens to like it or not.
In conducting his business, does Mr. Weston pay wages and expenditures other than petty cash, by cheque or accepted bank drafts, and deposit all receipts in his bank account, which I think everybody will recognize as an effective way of checking everything that is in his books?

Supply-National Revenue
Under date of October 7, 1952, did Mr. Weston receive a registered letter from the Calgary income tax office quoting sections 114 and 119 of the Income Tax Act, stating that Mr. Weston's records were inadequate for income tax purposes and that he "must maintain such records that will set out in properly classified detail all your"-the taxpayer's- "business transactions yearly". How many officials of the Calgary income tax office have the authority to judge what constitutes or does not constitute "such records that will set out in properly classified detail all your business transactions yearly?"
Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit that is a most important question, because in the case of Mr. Weston, the power of the man who visited him, in the matter of saying whether Mr. Weston's particular type of bookkeeping was satisfactory, meant a tremendous loss to Mr. Weston; thousands and thousands of dollars if conditions go on as they are at the present time. I would say that a man who has the authority to do that should be one of the highest probity, one of the finest judges in the land.
Here is a man able to come into a businessman's office and decide whether his bookkeeping is satisfactory and, on the basis of that, visit upon him the most outrageous abuses, as we shall find out.
Who has the responsibility of measuring and deciding upon the qualifications of a given candidate as to eligibility for the position of one to be given the authority and responsibility to judge as to the adequacy or inadequacy of any given set of records for income tax purposes? Mr. Chairman, to show you how important that matter is may I recall a document which came up in a certain debate in this house where it was pointed out that the government had eight different kinds of bookkeeping in one of its departments. I presume that every one of those systems was considered by the government to be satisfactory, but an income tax official visiting them would say that one was all right and that all the others were wrong. He would be the sole judge, and against his decision there would be no recourse. That sounds very close to irresponsibility to me.
By what standards of measurement are a given candidate's qualifications gauged? In other words, does the man who is going to decide whether an income tax officer is to be given this tremendous authority have a score card to go by, or does it depend on just how he feels when he gets up that morning? Are our income tax inspectors ever given refresher courses to make sure they are judging by the same standards? Is there only one acceptable form in which records

for income tax purposes might be kept? It is time that matter was decided and approved by this house and by the country. Is that form readily available to all taxpayers and to all income tax officials? How does the minister account for the fact that the Calgary income tax officer who visited Mr. Weston in 1950 made no complaint about Mr. Weston's books while the official visiting him in the year 1952 made so much complaint that he has practically ruined Mr. Weston? One official alone did it!
Did the Calgary income tax office somewhere about October 20, 1952, send Mr. Weston a four-page statement: (a) purporting to show that Mr. Weston's net worth had increased from $21,461.61 as of December 31, 1947 to $48,053.27 at December 31, 1951; (b) reassessing Mr. Weston for the years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and claiming additional income tax in the amount of $5,639.50 including $447.14 for penalties and interest, when Mr. Weston had not known a single thing about any responsibility according to any regulation for the neglect of which he could be subject to penalty? Mr. Chairman, these things are terrible things.
Next, did Mr. Weston file an appeal against this reassessment setting out that in the consideration of only 17 items of the mass of details the Calgary office submitted in its four-page statement sent to Mr. Weston, there were mistakes amounting to a total error of $14,505.07, of the $27,806.66 increase in Mr. Weston's net worth position claimed by the Calgary office, a very serious total error on the part of the Calgary income tax office. Notwithstanding the fact that these 17 items were listed by Mr. Weston and were submitted with proof that could not be gainsaid, Mr. Weston was unable to register any influence whatsoever with the man who proceeded with his case, as I shall show later on.
Next, did Mr. Weston in his appeal express the view that further search would show that additional Calgary office errors would account for all the rest of the $27,806.66 additional net worth claimed by the Calgary office? The answer in this case will be yes, and I have that appeal right before me, Mr. Chairman.
Did Mr. Weston at the same time write the Calgary office asking them to delay their demand for immediate payment of the additional tax of $5,639.30? Mark, Mr. Chairman, here is a man who has never failed to file his income tax return, who has never been delinquent in paying any money he owed, and who has always been co-operative. He

makes this simple request under most unusual circumstances and is refused.
Has Mr. Weston ever at any time, and particularly in this case, refused to pay his income tax or even manifested un-co-opera-tiveness in the matter of income tax? The answer to that will be no.
Did the Calgary office on December 18, 1952, refuse to delay the demand for settlement? The answer is yes, and I have their letter here.
Did the director of appeals at Ottawa take two weeks to answer Mr. Weston's appeal? The answer is yes. Now you will find, when we get on a little further, that because Mr. Weston was one day late he was just practically ruined, but the appeal officer in Ottawa could delay the matter for two weeks at a very, very vital time and no one was able to do anything about it.
Did Mr. Weston have $4,000 worth of bonds which he kept in the Royal Bank of Canada, Cardston, as security for the line of credit with which he operated his business activity? The answer it yes. Did Mr. Weston maintain that these $4,000 worth of bonds constituted the only means whereby he could support his credit which he must have to carry on his operations, and that without those bonds he must go out of business? The answer is yes.
The income tax officials in Calgary, who pretend to know more about Mr. Weston's business than he does, maintain that he does not have to have these bonds. Mr. Weston says he does, and that is a very important matter. Today Mr. Weston is idle, with a large crew, with trucks, a car and machines and a fine contracting business ready to build houses at a time when there is a housing shortage such as we have here in Canada! He is idle today because he cannot gain access to those $4,000 worth of bonds. I shall explain how that is.
Did a Calgary income tax official on January 19, 1953, call Mr. Weston by long distance telephone and demand that Mr. Weston turn over to the income tax officials his $4,000 worth of bonds, delivering them in Calgary by noon the next day, 146 miles away? The answer is yes. Did that official threaten that if Mr. Weston did not do so, the income tax office would seize all Mr. Weston's cars, trucks and the machinery in his shop? Now, for sheer unadultered savagery, that beats anything I have seen. I think you will agree with that, Mr. Chairman.
Did that income tax official in the same telephone conversation with Mr. Weston, no doubt at Mr. Weston's expense, order Mr. Weston to get up to Mr. Weston's bank and
Supply-National Revenue have the manager call the income tax official long distance-no doubt at Mr. Weston's expense again-at Calgary? Mighty men, these income tax collectors, are they not? Did Mr. Weston go and see the manager of his bank, as he was commanded? The answer in both cases is, yes.
Did the manager, after some discussion with an official, ask Mr. Weston if he would sign a note for a loan of $1,800 from the bank, the said $1,800 to be held in favour of the receiver general of Canada as security against an income tax assessment? This $1,800 and the $4,000 worth of bonds would make $5,800, which would clear the amount the Calgary income tax office said Mr. Weston owed but which Mr. Weston could prove, without any question, that he did not owe -not more than half of it, anyway. Did Mr. Weston reply that if he had to borrow the money, and if the bank would lend it to him, he was willing to sign the note for that purpose? The answer is yes. This indicates Mr. Weston's co-operativeness, even although he realized he was the victim of the most shameful outrage.
Then did Mr. Weston sign the following letter, first, surrendering his security in the form of $4,000 worth of bonds which I have already mentioned; second, certifying the enclosure of an $1,800 cheque, presumably drawn upon the Royal Bank of Canada, Cardston. The answer is yes. I shall read the letter:
Cardston, Alberta, 20 January 1953.
The Manager,
The Royal Bank of Canada,
Cardston, Alberta.
Dear Sir:
I would appreciate it if you would hold the undermentioned bonds and enclosed cheque in the amount of $1800 in favour of the receiver general of Canada, as security against income tax assessment by the Department of National Revenue, this security to be released only upon the instructions in writing of the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, Calgary, Alberta, following the outcome of the appeal from the assessment. It is clearly understood that the Department of National Revenue has full control of the above security and further they have full authority to request that these be forwarded to their department if they so deem it necessary. These instructions and order are irrevocable by me.
Dominion of Canada bond 3 per cent March 1/54 for $1,000
Dominion of Canada bond 3 per cent January 1/59 for $1,000
Dominion of Canada bond 3 per cent June 1/60 for $1,000
Dominion of Canada bond 3 per cent February 1/62 for $1,000
Yours truly,
R. Weston.
Did this move put Mr. Weston and his banker in the difficult financial position of Mr. Weston having drawn a cheque for

Supply.-National Revenue $1,800 against the Royal Bank of Canada, and at the same time signing over to the receiver general of Canada all the security he had in the bank upon which the validity of the cheque depended, thereby rendering the $1,800 cheque an n.s.f. cheque? How does that sound to your sense of justice?
Next, Mr. Chairman, did the manager, in order to protect his bank, have to go to Mr. Weston the next day and ask Mr. Weston to raise money with which to cover the cheque? The answer is yes. Did Mr. Weston, in order to protect his banker, find himself obliged to sell for $2,000 a building worth $3,000, thereby sustaining a loss of $1,000? The answer is yes.
Was Mr. Weston right when he declared that the $4,000 worth of bonds in his bank constituted the basis of his credit, and that without them he would have to go out of business? The answer would be yes.
In a letter to me under date of April 2, 1953, Mr. Weston uses the following words:
I have already discovered from experience that it takes four to five years to get back refunds of overpaid taxes resulting from poor assessments made by the Calgary income tax office.
I am going to ask the minister to make an investigation to find out if he can adduce adequate evidence to show that those of Mr. Weston's words are not firmly founded upon fact. The minister cannot do it.
Mr. Weston, in his letter to me of April 2, 1953 says:
A copy of the errors I have already located is attached hereto for your information.
I am putting this on the record so the people across Canada can see and know actually what was done. Mr. Weston says:
From a cursory examination in the time which has elapsed since the taxpayer received the net worth statement prepared by the assessor who called at his office in October the following errors have been observed:
1.	In the comparative balance sheet, the item $766.16 listed as an asset at 31 December 1951 under heading of western savings and loan contract was not in existence at that date.
2.	In appendix A statement, account receivable listed as $642.11 at 31 December 1951 re concrete products was in fact the account receivable as at September 1952, at which date it was presented to Concrete Products Limited and promptly paid by them.
3.	In appendix A statement, account receivable listed as $1,995 at 31 December, 1951 re F. Eagle Child, was in fact the total account of this job, which was only started in December, 1951 and not completed until end of March, 1952.
4^ In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as Gulf Oil $45 at 31 December, 1951 was a disputed item and written off by the taxpayer in 1951.
5.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as S. Hesketh $883.35 at 31 December, 1951, was in fact only $583.35.

6.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as Indian Grandstand and Toilets $439, 31 December, 1951; was in fact a courtesy piece of .work done by taxpayer to enable the Indians to receive a farewell visit from the retiring Governor General of Canada. The Indian department at Ottawa refused the account and it was written off by the taxpayer in 1951.
One would imagine that the stones would scream at such things!
7.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed Indian school (Fr. LaFrance) $4,000.00 was in fact only $2,000.00 and considered a bad debt by the taxpayer.
8.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as Jake's Service Station $970.15 at 31 Dec. 1951, was in fact only $747.44 and has been paid as such.
9.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as Rufus Pilling $131.00 (Shingling) 31 Dec. 1951. This was not billed by taxpayer; the work was done for a blind old age pensioner and his old age pensioner wife.
10.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as St. Mary's river school $35.00, 31 Dec. 1951, was a disputed item and written off by the taxpayer when the St. Mary's river school division settled their 1951 bill that year.
11.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as Fred Stabdown, $4,500.00 was in fact $2,000.00.
12.	In appendix A statement, account receivable item listed as Allen Shade, $2,578.15, 31 Dec. 1949, was in fact $1,978.15 and a bad debt as this Indian has left the reservation since some time in 1949 and his whereabouts are unknown. It is not permissible to file a mechanics lien on work and material supplied to Indians.
13.	In appendix A statement, account receivable items listed Three Persons, Mrs. Tommy, $4,986.57 and $835.05 was in fact only a total of $4,767.52 and was a 1950 account. Mr. Three Persons is dead and the account is unsecured for same reason as in case of Allen Shade item.
14.	In appendix A statement, accounts receivable item listed as E. J. Wood, $266, 31 Dec. 1951, is in fact only $166.
15.	In appendix A statement, accounts receivable item listed as Mrs. Workman $21.25, 31 Dec. 1951, was a disputed account from the Reed-Workman job and treated as such by the taxpayer.
16.	In appendix A statement, uncompleted contract 31 Dec. 1951, $4,500. This amount is wrong; the job was only just started when weather forced the crew to lay off until following spring.
17.	In appendix C statement, accounts payable, $2,873.66. This represents only some of the outstanding cheques at 31 December, 1951. In fact there was a total of $3,055.99 O.S.C. plus additional accounts of $2,093.26, a total of $5,149.25 accounts, payable if the outstanding cheques are included.
These 17 items total $14,505.07 plus the correction to be made in the item of uncompleted contract 31 Dec. 1951, and when the checking of the statement compiled by the assessor is completed the taxpayer is sure other mistakes will also be located.
On the basis of those figures-which, beyond any shadow of doubt, are correct, Mr. Chairman, because they are prepared right from Mr. Weston's books by a bookkeeper whom I know in Cardston as a man of skill- the most the income tax authorities could possibly have levied against Mr. Weston was $14,000, which would have cut their



MATf 14, 1953

[Stage Direction]
bill from $5,000 down to $2,500 and probably made it possible for Mr. Weston to be saved, just on the basis of those alone. Can the minister supply any satisfactory evidence to show that the statements in this list are not founded upon absolute fact?
When the minister writes about these things to the Calgary office, I would suggest that the minister be not satisfied with what they tell him. He had better send a man he can absolutely trust out there to examine, just as Mr. Scully went some time ago.
The following passage I quote from a letter to me from Mr. Weston under date of April 23, 1953. It is as follows:
In order that you may have some absolutely foolproof Items to press home the fact of the inaccuracies in the net worth statement prepared by Calgary income tax office and on which they are basing their demand for $5,800 extra tax, I give you the following data:
1.	Western Savings and Loan Contract, $766.16.
The income tax office says I had this on hand
at December 31, 1951, as an asset. The circumstances surrounding this contract are lengthy, but I created this asset in July, 1952 when I gave the company my cheque for $766.16 which they cashed on July 17, 1952 at Winnipeg.
2.	Indian house for Fanny Eaglechild, $1995.
This contract was given out in November, 1951.
Note those words, "given out". The letter continues:
I started the work on November 25, 1951, but as you know the weather in November and December, 1951 was so bad we could do nothing around here; and it was not until late in March, 1952 that the work was started again, and the house was finished in April, 1952; and I received payment in 1952. But the income tax office says I had this payment due me at December 31, 1951 and have taxed me on it. If the work done in late November, 1951 had been abandoned, I would not have received any payment whatever on the contract. Therefore to charge me with a payment that I did not either receive or earn in 1950 is obviously wrong.
3.	Indian house for Mrs. Tommy Threepersons, $4,986.57. This work was started in September, 1950 but stopped because of trouble between the heirs of Mr. Tommy Threepersons estate. In October, 1950 I was paid $3,000 for the work done to that date, and I accounted for that $3,000 in my 1950 income. In summer of 1951 the Indian agent authorized the work continued and it was finally completed and in September, 1952 I was paid $4,986.57.
In this case also the income tax office is charging me with income that was neither earned nor received until 1952.
4.	Indian house Fred Stabdown, $4,500. I obtained a house in town of Cardston, owned and occupied by Mr. Jack Reid as part payment by Mr. Reid in 1951 for work done by me on his new store building. I later got authority to sell this house to Fred Stabdown for $6,500. On February 23, 1951, I received $2,500 on account of this house from the Indian agent; and on October 15 I received a further $2,000, leaving a balance of $2,000 still owing to me. This asset was not created until 1951 but the income tax office have charged me with $4,500 of this item as an asset at December 31, 1950.
Supply-National Revenue
5.	The income tax office charged me with the full amount of my bank balance at Royal bank on December 31, 1950, and offset $2,873.66 as accounts payable against this balance; in fact at December 31, 1950 there were $3,093.50 outstanding cheques plus $2,093.26 of unpaid accounts, making a total $5,186.76 accounts payable. This means the income tax office made an error of $2,313.10 and therefore charged me this $2,313.10 as income.
I have not heard anything about my bonds being released; the income tax office reported that I do not use these bonds in my business; this is absolutely false; I have always had these bonds hypothecated to the Royal bank to secure loans with which to finance my payroll for my help. As I have no security now at the bank I am unable to obtain the loans required to carry on my contracts; and at present am doing absolutely no work as I have no means to finance it.
This letter is signed by Ralph Weston.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have had to inflict all this on the committee, but when we are dealing with people such as those we seem to be dealing with out in that area, the only thing we can possibly do is present the evidence before the high court of parliament. This I have done.
May I just make another observation with respect to the quality of Mr. Weston's bookkeeping. It is quite obvious that the bookkeeper or chartered accountant to whom he took his books was able to ascertain all these facts. It is strange indeed that the Calgary income tax people could not. I ask, can the minister supply any satisfactory evidence to show that the statements of the taxpayer in this case are not founded upon absolute facts, or deny them? Is Mr. Weston at present having the records written up in the form demanded by the income tax director? The answer is yes. And with all possible speed and at considerable expense. The answer is yes.
Again, Mr. Weston in his appeal statement used these words. I am reading now from the-
William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have hesitated to interrupt the hon. member as he seemed to be reaching the end of his speech, but I must remind him that he is now a few minutes over his time.


Mr. Low:: May I ask the minister a question. I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said, and it did occur to me at one stage to ask this question, which the minister can answer and I am sure will be prepared to answer. Is it legal under the act, on the sole discretion of some income tax official in the Calgary office, to demand from a taxpayer the surrender of his bonds to secure what the income tax official has said was his unpaid tax, even though the case is under appeal?
5414	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue


James Joseph McCann: This is about the third time at least that I have heard this whole story. I am conversant with the case. This man was assessed. He accepted the assessment and sent in $4,000 in bonds to pay his debt, which was $5,639. He went to the bank and got credit for the remaining $1,800. He has not filed an appeal. He has the right to file an appeal, which would cost him $15, before the income tax appeal board, but he did not do that.
The contention of the hon. member for Lethbridge is that his money should be returned to him in order that it may be used as working capital in his business. As I have told the hon. member for Lethbridge on the three occasions in which he has spoken to me, we do not act as bankers for taxpayers. That is what bankers are for. If they owe money to the department, a demand is made upon them by way of assessment notice, and if no attention is paid to it within the time limit we issue a writ to protect the crown and we take such property, or at least such assets, as they have.
The hon. member speaks about this man having trucks, and having this and having that. He can raise money on that. I have listened repeatedly to this case both tonight and on two previous occasions when it was brought up by the hon. member for Lethbridge. It would try the patience of anybody. What the hon. member has said tonight is a lot of drivel and nothing else. This case has been dealt with and a decision has been made. The place for the taxpayer to go in this instance is to the appeal board. If the assessment is not sustained, if he wins his appeal, his money will be refunded. That is the course of law. That is the course any taxpayer in the country can take. To take up the time of the house at this stage of the session-it may be his right-in my judgment at least is not a very good way of proceeding. To ask a series of questions, which the hon. member answered himself, is also not the proper way to proceed.
I have said this to the hon. member privately within this last week after about the third review of the whole case that has taken hours. If I spend an hour with him privately on this case, and then I take another case tomorrow and then take another case with him the next day he wants to bring along- he thinks he should take up all this time- and if I were to do that with every taxpayer the days would not be long enough even if I worked 24 hours a day.
I ask the hon. member for Lethbridge to be reasonable. If he wants to put on the record a series of questions with reference to an


individual taxpayer, if they can be answered and still observe the law so far as my officials are concerned, they will be answered; but I deprecate this thing of taking the case of an individual taxpayer whom he names, and putting all his private business before the public of Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister already
tonight has made a statement that is diametrically opposed to the information I have, namely the letter written to the Royal Bank of Canada and signed by Mr. Weston. I have a copy of the letter. I say this will all deference. I will accept the word of Mr. Weston against the word of the minister any time.


James Joseph McCann: All right; make your choice.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not wish to be unkind in any way, shape or form, but I tell you the way things have been carried on out in my area is an abomination, that is all. And if the minister does not accept that, why then it is just his responsibility, and I am telling him.
There are three or four other questions I have to ask, and I will defy the minister to prove any of these statements untrue. I am not sure of the technicalities about the appeal, but I have right here in my hand a copy of the appeal of Mr. Weston setting out errors in assessment. I have it right here.


James Joseph McCann: To whom is the appeal?


John Horne Blackmore: I am not just sure about that. It does not state. The man who sent it in must have known.


James Joseph McCann: To clear the matter up, it may be an appeal to the Department of National Revenue taxation division. If it is an appeal to the income tax appeal board, why does he not proceed with it? That is exactly what the income tax appeal board was set up for. It was set up to adjudicate any case in which there was a difference of opinion between the tax officials and the taxpayer.


Solon Earl Low: Will the minister now answer the question I asked? I do not know whether this constitutes the form in which an appeal should be made to the appeal board, I do not know anything about the case, but I do ask whether or not on the sole discretion of the officials in the Calgary office they would have the right to force this man to pay over bonds to secure a debt which he says he does not owe, and against which he has an appeal? That is what I should like to know.


James Joseph McCann: The officials of the Calgary office have by statute the authority to collect the taxes.


Solon Earl Low: To collect the taxes. That is another matter. But here is a man who says he has been wrongly taxed. To force that man to pay over bonds which he had on deposit in the Royal Bank of Canada to secure a debt which he says he does not owe, and which they have not yet proved he does owe, seems to be strange. All I can go by is the information my hon. friend has put on the record. I was just asking whether the officials had that authority.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member must have misunderstood. They did not force him. They asked him to put up security for his tax account, which was approximately $5,639, and he put up the security of $5,800.


Solon Earl Low: As I gather it, Mr. Chairman, he had his choice either to surrender these bonds or to submit to seizure of his trucks and equipment.


James Joseph McCann: Or other assets; yes.


Solon Earl Low: What is that but forcing? That is what I was wanting to get. Is that not pretty high-handed action on the part of the officials, especially when an appeal has been launched or is being taken, to make him pay the fine as if he were guilty without being proved guilty. That seems to me to be pretty tough.


James Joseph McCann: That is not right, and it is not being tough. That is the tax he owed, according to the assessment, and he was given 60 days in which to pay up. He was told at the end of 60 days, when he had not paid, to put up security; otherwise other proceedings would be taken, and the other proceedings, if he had not put up security, would have been a writ in the exchequer court which would protect the interests of the crown.


John Horne Blackmore: I have raised this case. All I know is what Mr. Weston has written to me. Mr. Weston indicates that he is an honest man. I cannot conceive that Mr. Weston would have sent this information and given me permission to use it on the floor of the House of Commons if he had not been satisfied that it is true. So we will have to leave all these technicalities to the future to work out.
But this I do know, that there have been four or five cases I know of in my constituency in which there was nothing short of absolute theft of a large sum of money- robbed from a man-just because he thought
Supply-National Revenue it would be cheaper to give them the money than to take the case to court and go through the hopeless process a man must go through in court.


James Joseph McCann: That is a statement I defy the hon. member to make outside of this House of Commons. He is under the protection of the immunities he enjoys as a member of the House of Commons when he accuses anyone of theft.


John Horne Blackmore: Now, Mr. Chairman, I am in the House of Commons, and it is the right of my constituents to have me use my privilege in the House of Commons. A member has small enough chance to fight for righteousness and for justice for his constituents, even when he is protected by that privilege.
I do not hesitate to make statements. I will say everything that needs to be said anywhere, any time. That has been my record up to the present time. I am in the House of Commons now, and I am not sorry.
Now, Mr. Weston in his appeal statement used these words:
The taxpayer is proceeding to set up his record for the years 1948 to 1952-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Do I understand the hon. member is reading from the actual appeal which has been launched by the gentleman in question?


John Horne Blackmore: I am reading from a document which is headed, "Copy of appeal filed by Mr. Weston setting out arrears in assessments"-and this is signed by Mr. Weston. Whether it is an actual appeal-


William Alfred Robinson: I would point out to the hon. member that if, as he says, an appeal has been launched with the appeal board, this matter would perhaps be sub judice and his discussion of it in the House of Commons would be out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I shall merely give a summary of it, then, and not read it. He states that he is having the records set up in the form demanded by the income tax officials.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. We must settle this question as to whether or not the appeal has actually been launched. If the hon. member is speaking of an appeal which has been launched by the gentleman in question, then I am afraid that he is entirely out of order in raising the matter here.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, Mr. Chairman, I bow to your ruling. I am glad you are prepared to recognize that this was an appeal. The minister was not prepared to do that.

Supply-National Revenue
Now, I say this-and this is a dreadfully serious matter-that Mr. Weston tells me it is impossible for him to find anyone in the town of Cardston, a town of 2,500 people, qualified to set up records in the form demanded by the Calgary income tax director. In other words, he has to go to another place, probably to Lethbridge, at great expense and hire someone to set up this form, it is so difficult.
Now I ask hon. members this question. What are we coming to in this country when the form in which the present records for income tax have to be set up is of such a nature that it takes exceptional experts to set it,up? Can we inflict upon the poor, unfortunate taxpayer the obligation of setting up his records in that form? It is a set of circumstances which beats anything, I believe, that has ever existed in the history of Anglo-Saxons right up to the present time. This is the new tyranny of oppression.
I would like to ask the minister this question. Does he consider it fair and equitable to the Canadian taxpayer to require of him records of a nature so exacting as to require such expense and inconvenience as has been indicated in Mr. Weston's case? Now, I have not had a chance to quote that passage, but I think I have got the idea across. Even while Mr. Weston is having his records set up to please the income tax director, the Calgary income tax office has demanded of Mr. Weston that he at once send up to them the vouchers and supplementary material necessary to set up the records.
Now, can you beat that? They demanded that he set up the records, and then they demanded that he send to them immediately all the documents necessary to set them up. It will take a little explaining to clear that away, I should imagine. They will have the vouchers and records in their possession and he will not have them. They will then be able to say that he cannot prove his case. Can you think of any more horrible situation than that? Surely that is a refinement on Russian procedure, in three or four different ways.
Now, will the minister read to the committee the clauses in the Income Tax Act under which are legalized in Canada the savage outrages of the type apparently perpetrated against Ralph Weston of Cardston, Alberta, during the years 1952 and 1953? I would like to hear those clauses read right into the record. Has the minister got them here? I want to know whether there are in the Income Tax Act clauses which permit the income tax authorities to seize the basis of a man's livelihood in consideration of a tax he does not owe.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, when you shout "carried" you are just adding to the length of the session, that is all. I was not born yesterday. I did not come to the House of Commons after you did. I know something about the House of Commons. So just don't get excited.
Now, I would like to ask this question of the House of Commons and the country. If that income tax official can come along and levy an additional tax of $27,000 against Mr. Weston, on evidence as flimsy as he had, is there any reason why he could not have levied $50,000 or even $100,000? Under the procedure which was adopted in this case an income tax official could destroy any entrepreneur in the province of Alberta by the same device, merely by going into his establishment and saying that his books were not properly kept, and levying a tax against him by way of a new assessment. Then he could proceed to seize everything the taxpayer had, if he did not pay the tax. The tax could be levied high enough so that no man could possibly pay it.
Look what a horrible state of affairs we have got into.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: It certainly is time something was done.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: I would like to ask one
more question. Upon what principle of British justice does the income tax department assume that a taxpayer owes any given impost, and must pay unless he can prove that he does not owe it? I have always been taught that the great fundamental principle of British justice is this, that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty. Now the income tax officials have reversed that; they say he is guilty until he has proved that he is innocent. In other words this outfit of irresponsible people have undertaken to pervert the British law, the whole fundamental principle of British justice.
If I am wrong in that I would be pleased to hear it. But that is the conclusion I draw from this general situation.
Maybe I have said some heated things to the minister. I am glad I did not say anything worse; I was tempted to. But I trust he and I will be the very best of friends after this. He knows he has my support if he will go into this and get the information. But don't let anybody get the idea that what I have said here tonight is not true.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question, and I am glad to see the

minister smiling, after his demonstration of patience. I am glad to see him smiling because I want to have him in good humour when I ask this question. I have a man in my riding who pays income tax. He has had a boy in hospital for three years. He did not put down the cost of this boy in the hospital and therefore he overpaid his income tax on an average of $45 per year for three years. The head office for his district is in Belleville now, and the matter seems to be out of their jurisdiction. They do not like to go back over a period of four years and bring it up to date or give him credit for it. He has overpaid his income tax on an average of $45 for three years. Is it possible for him to get that money back on this year's income tax?


James Joseph McCann: According to the law with reference to refunds, section 52 of the act, an application for a refund has to be made within twelve months, but if the hon. member will be good enough to give me the particular details of the case I shall be glad to look into it personally.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I shall give them to you tomorrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Income tax appeal board-
301. Administration expenses. $71,220.
Stanley Howard Knowles: If the income tax appeal board gives a ruling against the department and it is therefore clear that the law was not worded in such a way as to mean what the government intended it to mean, does the minister recommend to the Minister of Finance that the law be changed?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is that the minister does not necessarily recommend to the Minister of Finance what he should do. We draw the matter to his attention. The Minister of Finance is the one who is responsible for the law. We administer it and if we find, by reason of a decision on an appeal to the income tax appeal board, that the law is faulty and we think it should be changed, the matter is brought to his attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear that. On the basis of that answer may I remind the minister that some time ago the income tax appeal board ruled against the minister in the case of a lawyer who had sought to claim as deductible his expense incurred in attending a convention of the bar association. Since the department disallowed this lawyer's claim in the first place, I gather that the department took the view that it had not been intended to allow a lawyer's convention
Supply-National Revenue expenses as deductible. The income tax appeal board was not laying down policy; it was merely making a finding as to the meaning of the law as it was worded. The income tax appeal board ruled that the lawyer had that right under the law as it stood. Did the minister draw that to the attention of the Minister of Finance as a hole that should be plugged?


James Joseph McCann: I cannot answer definitely, but in that type of case it was considered to be a necessary expense and was allowed. I know what the hon. member is referring to, the matter of expense in the form of the lawyer's yearly fee which he has to pay in order to belong to the organization.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. We have gone over all that ground before. I am not talking about the yearly fees. They are allowed under another heading. I am talking now about a lawyer's expenses in attending an annual convention of the Canadian Bar Association. That is quite a different matter. When the lawyer in question sought to claim his expenses as a deduction the department disallowed his claim. He appealed to the income tax appeal board and they allowed his appeal.


James Joseph McCann: He would be reassessed. It would be allowed and the decision of the income tax appeal board would come before the Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of National Revenue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will ask my question again. Since this is a hole that should be plugged, has the Minister of Finance been asked to plug it?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
54. Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from rental of facilities in Radio Canada building to an amount of $160,000 and to re-expend it for the purposes of the international service, $1,982,050.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there is a group of items relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Nos. 54, 55, 540, 657 and 648. Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the committee to discuss the group of items together. That has been done in other years and I think it will facilitate matters.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think we are all conscious of the need of expediting discussions as far
5418	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue as possible at this stage and I propose to be very brief in what I have to say on these items. I wish to draw attention in the first place to one or two financial aspects of the operations of the C.B.C., and then I propose to say a word briefly on television. I think we can be brief at this stage because we have had discussions on radio broadcasting and television in the course of several debates during the session.
On the subject of sound broadcasting I wish to bring some facts to the attention of the house. For sound broadcasting and television the C.B.C. will have this year a total of $263 million under the items we are discussing, quite apart from the $2-38 million which will be voted to the C.B.C. for international shortwave broadcasting.
I draw attention to these facts because of the rapid expansion in C.B.C. operations and with it the very great expansion in expenditure through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For the fiscal year which commenced April 1, 1953, these are the amounts the C.B.C. will have available to it for sound broadcasting: the statutory grant of $6} million; revenue from the excise tax on radio receiving sets and tubes, $5} million; commercial revenue, $2 [DOT] 2 million, and miscellaneous revenue $610,000. In round figures that is a total of $15 million for sound broadcasting alone.
For television the C.B.C. will have revenue from the proceeds of the excise tax on television sets and tubes of $6 million, commercial revenue of $1 million, and the loan of $4} million provided for television by item 540, or a total of $11} million available for expenditure on television. The total of these two subtotals is $26} million. In addition, there is a total of $2 * 38 million which the C.B.C. expends as the agent of the government through the international shortwave broadcasting service.
On the subject of television-and I am trying to be very brief-these are the factors that have emerged in very clear focus both in discussions in the house from time to time during the present session and also from the deliberations of the committee on broadcasting of which you, Mr. Chairman, were the competent chairman. There have been successive changes in government policy with respect to the licensing of stations for television broadcasting. So far as announcements of government policy in the last ten and a half months are concerned, there have been major pronouncements on July 4, 1952, in the house, in the speech from the throne on November 20 last, in a speech in the house by the Minister of National Revenue on December 8, and finally the statement of the


minister in the house on March 30. Every one of these statements has been different from the previous one in the policy it has enunciated.
I wish to say that in the successive statements of policy I think there have been improvements. I am glad to see that we are some distance from the kind of statement, for instance, that the minister made in this house on July 4, 1952, or that was made in the throne speech. I contend that these modifications of policy statements of the government in regard to television indicate the beneficent effects of the criticism of government policy that have been offered by the Progressive Conservatives in this house.
It is to be observed that the present policy announced by the minister on March 30, to be found at page 3393 of Hansard, does at least in words contemplate the possibility of permitting two and perhaps in some cases more than two stations to operate in the same area. The minister has indicated in certain statements that stations may be licensed even in the areas served by television stations set up by the C.B.C. I wish to urge that the policy of licensing these private stations should be proceeded with and that competent applicants should be licensed in areas that are now served under what is at present a monopoly as far as Canadian broadcasting is concerned.
We know that television is very expensive. We have seen that, and it has been indicated to us by Mr. Dunton before the committee. When the committee visited Toronto it had an opportunity of seeing one program alone, a very pleasant show to watch and hear, which cost $7,000; and that is a weekly performance. Mr. Dunton indicated that in the two stations now operated by the C.B.C., one in Montreal and one in Toronto, they are giving about 60 per cent Canadian content in their programs. Listener interest in Toronto where the C.B.C. has direct competition from the Buffalo station indicates that the C.B.C. station is enjoying only about 20 per cent of the listener interest, about 76 per cent is going to the Buffalo station, and the small remainder is going to other privately-owned television stations in the United States. I submit that in the face of a situation like that the time has come when private stations should be licensed in these areas.
I believe that competition is a good thing. I believe that monopoly, even local monopoly, is a bad thing. The C.B.C. has proved that in its operations, from the competition offered to it from privately-owned stations, particularly in large areas, as Mr. Dunton has said in his appearances before the radio committee

in times past. I am satisfied that if privately-owned stations were licensed in these areas they could go after some of the listener interest that is now going to the Buffalo station. There have been long delays in dealing with applications by competent applicants who have long experience in the field of radio broadcasting, people who are possessed of adequate financial resources to take the very great risks involved in commencing television operations.
Mr. Chairman, there is a contradiction here in government policy. We can see that if we look at the statement of government policy summed up by the Department of Transport official, Mr. Browne, who was examined by the committee. We were speaking of sound broadcasting, and I will read from page 469 of the committee's proceedings:
You say there is no policy against licensing two or more stations in the same area?
A. There is no government policy which restricts the number of stations, of which I am aware.
Q. In other words, it is not the policy to foster a local monopoly in sound broadcasting?
A. There is no government policy, as I have said, akin to that which at the present time applies in the case of television.
You have a situation there, Mr. Chairman, where with respect to sound broadcasting there is no government policy designed to foster local monopoly in favour of C.B.C. stations or of anyone else. In the case of television broadcasting the way government policy has operated it, up to the present, has been a policy designed to foster local monopoly. Fostering local monopoly, as is crystal clear from the evidence given before the committee, does not hasten the spreading of stations across Canada. The granting of licences to applicants in the areas in which the C.B.C. has chosen to set up its stations would not have the effect of delaying the development of local stations in other areas.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the only result of denying applications for private stations in the areas chosen by the C.B.C. is to create a monopoly. It does not produce any effect other than the creation of a monopoly. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is no help to the C.B.C. to set up conditions of local monopoly. So far as the Toronto area is concerned, the result of that policy of keeping out private stations is not helping the C.B.C. It is the big American private station in Buffalo that is obtaining the advantage. Anybody who knows conditions in the Toronto area knows that fact very well.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, let us be sensible about this policy. If the policy announced by the minister on March 30 is sound, then, Mr. Chairman, the time is overdue for the application of that policy and the licensing of
Supply-Labour
private Canadian stations in those metropolitan areas so they may go out and compete with American television that is being beamed into those areas.


Mr. Nowlan:: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. He has stated that it is proposed to erect a television station in Halifax in the near future. Has a decision been made as to its location?


James Joseph McCann: No; no decision has been made.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would like to say, as the minister knows, that Halifax is surrounded by a range of hills and that any station that is built in Halifax would not be able to serve the rest of the province. But if the minister were to go farther afield and erect a station on the hills out of Halifax he might find a location which would serve the city of Halifax, the valley, Colchester and other parts of the province.


James Joseph McCann: It may well be that while the station would be in Halifax the transmitter would be up on the highest point. It will certainly be put at a point that will serve Halifax and the greatest possible area.


George Clyde Nowlan: Covering as much as possible of the province?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have just one remark about the international shortwave service. The plan to include the Polish language in the languages in which broadcasts are beamed to Europe is warmly welcomed by all. The item in the supplementary estimates which is designed to make provision for the inclusion of the Polish language among other languages will, I am sure, command the warm support of all members of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR 179. Departmental administration, $613,375.
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have made a statement when introducing my estimates and, for quite a long time, I have had one ready. As the evening has gone on I have stroked out large sections of it. Even at this late hour I would like to make a few remarks.
The estimates are divided into two main categories: (a) votes required for activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour proper; and (b) votes required for operations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I shall take the Department of Labour first. Speaking of this department gives me an opportunity to express appreciation for

Supply-Labour
the long and valuable services to Canada of the gentleman who up to recently has been deputy minister of labour for Canada, Arthur MacNamara.
This public servant during recent years has done much constructive thinking and able execution through the medium of this Department of Labour. He has given of his very best in the service of Canada and of his fellow Canadians, and in so doing he has inspired those who came under his direction and guidance. To me it has been a great privilege to be associated with him in this department.
It will be noted that for 1953-54 I am asking for $665,297 less than was asked for in 1952-53. There is no substantial change in staff strength of the department. The estimates also include a new vote, No. 188, to provide for a women's bureau, and a substantial increase in vote No. 196 to implement a program for the rehabilitation of the disabled. I shall give more information on both of those later.
Another increase, it may be noted, is under vote 186, for the organization and use of agricultural manpower, but this is not a true increase, as an offsetting decrease is taken under vote 199 of the unemployment insurance commission. I shall go into this more fully later.
I want to go back to the women's bureau. The women's organizations, speaking for large numbers of women, have been urging upon the government for some time that there are special problems facing women workers which should be given special attention. They say that adequate information is not always available in Canada pertaining to women workers, and that there is a need for more study and analysis of the basic facts about the employment of women and the opportunities for their employment. Also there appears to be need for intimate study of the particular problems of women in special situations, such as those who are both workers and homemakers or older women who might become self-supporting. It is believed that some women in employment are handicapped by some common prejudices of employers which are not founded on fact, and women think it is the responsibility of the Department of Labour to study the problems peculiar to women workers and establish facilities for making the results of such studies available to women's groups.
We therefore propose to establish a senior position in the department to be filled by a competent woman whose duty it will be to keep in close touch with national organizations concerned with the problems of

employed women, and to develop a women's bureau within the department. Amongst the bureau's functions will be a continuing review of what is being done by governmental and other agencies in this field, and the establishment of means for making the information available. In doing this we are recognizing that the problems raised by women's groups deserve attention. At the same time we must take care to avoid any duplication of present services. I am confident that the new women's bureau will play a very valuable part in the improvement of the status of women in Canada's great production program.
I call your attention to item 196. I am going to take time to deal with that one at some length. The need for a properly co-ordinated plan to rehabilitate Canada's disabled civilians has become increasingly evident. Because of this, a national conference was called by this government in 1951. The meeting of over 300 delegates, with every province officially represented, was sponsored by the departments of national health and welfare, veterans affairs and labour. Acting upon its recommendations a national advisory committee on rehabilitation was set up. This committee, composed of official representatives of each province, the federal departments I have named, the medical profession, employers, labour and voluntary welfare agencies and universities, first met in February, 1952. Since then it has met on two occasions.
In November of last year the executive of the committee outlined to the government the broad principles which they considered should be followed in a rehabilitation program. In keeping with the recommendations thus made to us, that is not only to this department but to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, we hope to reach agreement with each of the provinces very soon regarding the steps to be taken. In the meantime, in Mr. Ian Campbell we have found a national co-ordinator with long practical experience in the rehabilitation field with the workmen's compensation board of Ontario, proved good administrative ability and the possession of the qualifications necessary to organize and direct the newly formed civilian rehabilitation branch. Since his appointment in June, 1952, he has visited every province and has done something toward encouraging existing provincial, voluntary and civic efforts.
Under the provisions of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, through the special placement facilities of the unemployment insurance commission services essential to rehabilitation can be, and are being,

expanded. It is proposed that the present assistance now being given to the provinces under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act be extended to include a new training schedule for the disabled. In this connection my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, on Friday, May 1 set out on page 4682 of Hansard his department's far-reaching proposals designed to extend facilities for medical rehabilitation. I suggest that all members interested read once more what he said there, because his program outlined there and the smaller one I have set out here are matched together under a committee under the recommendations of the advisory council I mentioned, and are designed to bring together in this way the provinces and all the voluntary organizations I mentioned in one united effort.
While these provisions are essential to help round out a rehabilitation program, the whole purpose and direction will be lost unless the various contributions that governments and private agencies can make are properly tied together. A team is being evolved that will reduce the period and extent of disability, and enable the nation to benefit from the fullest possible utilization of the latent skills of the disabled. It will help especially to enrich the lives of many of our fellow Canadians who have been disabled, and who have felt neglected.
Now, on the matter of decreases, the largest amount is under vocational training. This is not an indication that the government is any less interested in this important program. We are more interested in it than ever before, because Canada's need for skilled workers is greater than ever before. The decrease in the vote is due to projects of a capital nature having been completed. These completed projects account for the full amount of the reduction. The government is still assisting the provinces in providing youth training, apprenticeship training, which has gone forward with new vigour this last year, fore-manship and supervisory training, and other classes which will assist in bringing skilled trades into our labour markets. It is also proposed to continue the payment of annual grants to relieve the provinces of a portion of the operational expenses of vocational schools.
The other comparatively large decrease is under vote 195, the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and in other essential industry in Canada. We are asking for $110,000 less for 1953-54 than was voted in 1952-53. This is possible because of smaller group movements and easier shipping conditions which will enable movements 68108-342i
Supply-Labour
to be controlled to meet seasonal demands and thus avoid off-season maintenance costs.
I come now to labour-management relations, vote 182. There is practically no change in this vote, which is for the conciliation service. I wanted to mention one or two points with regard to it, because perhaps it is the most important single division of our work. Fifty-four cases were dealt with by conciliation officers under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act during the fiscal year 1952-53. Of these 54 cases, settlements were secured in 30 cases by the conciliation officers' co-operation. Out of a total of 37 disputes dealt with by the conciliation boards, 23 settlements had been secured by March 31. Of the remainder, 8 disputes were still in the hands of the boards at that date, and in 4 other cases board reports had been received and were under consideration. Apart from the cases in process as mentioned, in only 2 cases dealt with were settlements not achieved during the fiscal year, and in only one of these cases did strike action occur. This, of course, was the dispute that ended recently in British Columbia.
Now we come to the unemployment insurance commission. Administration costs show an increase of $504,523. This is made up of increases in salaries, higher rents, increased stationery, supplies and equipment, and for alterations, maintenance and repairs of buildings housing commission offices.
The item for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available shows a decrease of $125,000 from the previous year. This is due to a readjustment whereby the Department of Labour made provision for the interprovincial transfer of workers under dominion-provincial farm labour agreements heretofore provided by the unemployment insurance commission. Through the readjustment of these services under one appropriation, a saving of $60,000 has been effected.
In considering administration costs of the unemployment insurance program, it is essential to remember that these cover both insurance and placement activities. There has been a tendency sometimes to consider the amount that is paid out in cash benefits and take certain percentages of that amount for administration costs and say that is a very high percentage of administration costs; and so it would be if those administration costs were to cover only the paying out, bookkeeping, accounting and processing of the insurance itself. But that administration cost also covers the entire cost of the placement

Supply-Labour
service in the national employment offices in over 200 centres across Canada.
The commission operates a free-that is, free to the applicant-employment service available to all employers and workers whether engaged in insurable employment or not. That is an important fact to remember.
At the end of the fiscal year the regular staff of the commission numbered 6,917 as compared with 6,885 at the close of last year, 1951-52. The number of casual employees was 1,115 as against 1,140 on March 31, 1952. There are now in operation more than 200 local offices located across Canada from Newfoundland to the Pacific. They are administered by the commission from Ottawa through five regional offices.
During the calendar year 1952 the number of vacancies filled-that is, job vacancies- was 969,916 as compared with 918,238 in the previous calendar year.
On the insurance side, the latest available figures show a balance in the insurance fund, as at February 28, of $858,159,269. The total amount paid out in benefits since the inception of the plan, up to February 28 last, is $545,142,962. It will be quite obvious that the distribution of this appreciable sum has not only proved to be of great assistance to the direct beneficiaries, but has helped to maintain economic stability in our country.
Since contributions began in the summer of 1941, the sum of $1,070,082,806 has been paid into the fund by employers and employees. The government's contribution has totalled $215,852,552. The sum of $117,223,515 has been added to the fund as the result of interest on investments and profit on sale of securities. The fund itself is invested in federal government bonds, or bonds guaranteed by the government.
Mr. Chairman, in presenting my estimates for 1953-54 I should like to pay tribute to the loyal and devoted work of the staffs of both the department and the commission. More and more has it become necessary for these two government agencies, while maintaining their own identities, to co-ordinate many of their activities. This has been carried forward. I can assure the committee that every effort will continue to be made by both to improve their services to the people of Canada.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this item I should like to join with the minister in his tribute to the former deputy minister of labour, Mr. Arthur Mac-Namara, for the services which he rendered to Canada in that capacity. Like other speakers tonight on this and various subjects,

I find the hour so late and everyone in the frame of mind where they wish to get on with the business of the house, that it is my purpose to curtail my remarks as much as I can and still touch on the points I wish to place on the record.
I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am greatly impressed with the current trend of thinking which in all fields of production is becoming more and more serious about the type and volume of that production. I was much impressed on reading the address given in February of this year by Mr. Walter P. Reuther, president of the C.I.O., at the Ontario federation of labour convention at Windsor. I wish to quote part of one sentence, in which he said:
. . . the real challenge that we face as free people is to prove to the world and to ourselves that we know how to achieve full employment and full production in peacetime, making the good things that people need in their everyday lives.
I think it is one of the achievements of the twentieth century that workers and management are drawing ever closer to a realization of their mutual problems. Of course they still continue to have their individual problems but, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a growing respect for the viewpoint of the other, on both sides, which augurs well for the production potentialities of Canada.
It is interesting to read words such as those uttered by this outstanding labour leader and it is also interesting to find that labour leaders, both here and in our neighbouring country to the south, are considering more and more the prospects of peace and the conversion of our industrial life to peacetime work.
To put it bluntly, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the duty of the Department of Labour in Canada to be prepared in this regard, to be ready to make suggestions and to deal with industrial problems, as they are sure to arise, so that the production of the nation may flow with a minimum of disruption when we once more enter an era of peace.
It is interesting to notice in the current issue of the International Labour Review that a study is also being undertaken with regard to methods of increasing productivity in manufacturing industries. Without going into the matter to any extent, Mr. Chairman, because the whole study is here for anyone to read who may be interested, I should like just to quote the first paragraph and the introduction to the conclusion of the experts in which it says:
In the broadest sense the problem of raising productivity is the problem of making more efficient use of our resources in general-of using them

to produce as much wealth as possible at the lowest possible real cost.
In this year 1953 I think we must look back over the past decade and realize that conditions have changed greatly since about 1939 or 1940. During the period of accelerated employment during the war years and subsequent thereto we had a series of changes in working conditions and in methods of production which left many of our labour laws and regulations in the background. Conditions are now entirely different from what they were in those years. The work week has been shortened. The general composition of labour personnel has changed. It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that there is now a great need for a revision of the labour laws of this country in order to bring them into conformity with current conditions and accepted practices.
The various labour organizations have been asking for some time for uniform labour relations legislation and administration throughout Canada. While this was possible during wartime, it is only possible now of course through co-operation with the provinces and voluntary adherence to a general principle. I hope the Department of Labour is working on some scheme whereby the provinces may be persuaded to bring their various labour acts into conformity with one over-all principle, so there may be real uniformity throughout the whole of this Dominion of Canada.
In this regard, too, it is interesting to notice the discussions that took place in this chamber earlier this session on various labour matters that have come up. Bill No. 2, which was sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act are cases in point. I should like to refer to the discussion which took place at the time Bill No. 2 was referred to the industrial relations committee, when it was decided to ask this committee to scrutinize the bill. The subsequent outcome was that the department took it under advisement. When it passed the committee and was discussed in the house the Leader of the Opposition made some remarks, and I should like to quote from them as they appear in the Labour Gazette of March. He said:
It will be recalled that on other occasions we have proposed that there should be a general review of this act.
He was dealing with the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I continue:
One of the questions that arise in regard to any single amendment of this kind is that the most desirable practice is to have a general examination of the whole act, because patching up the act
Supply-Labour
in one spot or another may not produce the desired results. In the end, as has happened on a number of other occasions, an unwieldy and sometimes incoherent act may result, and clauses introduced into the act by way of amendment from time to time may easily conflict with each other when they subsequently are interpreted by the courts or elsewhere, and they may in fact defeat the very spirit of the act itself. Often a few words introduced without regard to the whole act and the intention of the act have had the effect of defeating the very purpose for which the amendment was introduced.
So it was with a feeling of some satisfaction, Mr. Chairman, that the committee learned that this was precisely what the department had in mind, and that a start was already being made on an over-all examination of the act with a view to its revision.
I was pleased to notice that the minister made reference to the establishment of a women's bureau. As a matter of fact, prior to the time the estimates were put out I had a note in my file to bring up this matter of a women's bureau. It had been my intention to ask the minister to consider the establishment of such a bureau, because I thought the time had arrived when it was necessary to have some sort of not only supervision but planning in order to investigate various conditions of employment of women in Canada. I notice that the appropriation which has been placed in the estimates is a small one. That is wise because you cannot simply establish a large bureau overnight. It will grow, and it is just as well that it should grow carefully and not become an unwieldy and top-heavy department without regard for the plan which it has to follow. It is a recognition of the fact that there is an increasing number of women in the labour force of Canada.
As we look back to the first war, 1914 to 1918, we recall that prior to that time the women's labour force was very small. They came out in great numbers during the first war, and took their places in industrial plants and in other fields of activity. Then after the war they slackened off a bit, although the over-all number rose steadily over the years, partly I think because they had learned the habit of working outside of their homes during the period of that first war. Then, as the labour force gradually increased, more and more women found that it was not only desirable for their own sakes but also for the sake of the nation that they should employ their services in industrial and other pursuits. After a while we had a second world war, and starting with 1939 the women flocked into the plants of this nation and did work which had previously been considered unsuitable for women workers.

Supply-Labour
I know that in my own city of Hamilton they went into our large plants, and they did such important and heavy work as operating the huge cranes in our big industrial plants. They drove heavy trucks, and they did all manner of work which we had previously thought could be done only by men. So the whole picture of women's employment changed during those two periods, and today we have a large labour force of women which is increasing every year.
It is with this over-all picture in mind that I compliment the minister on his decision to establish this women's bureau. I am sure he is going to have difficulty selecting the proper person to head the bureau. By that I do not mean he will have difficulty in finding a person; he will have difficulty in selecting one woman from the many able and competent women who are available to him for that purpose. It is not a job I would like to undertake myself, but I know that whoever he finally selects will do a good job for the women of Canada and for Canada as well.
I ask the minister to go one step further and consider a suggestion I made last year and I think the year before, namely to enlarge the unemployment insurance commission by the addition of a woman to that body. I made that suggestion on other occasions, and I become more and more convinced that it would be a desirable move. I can assure the minister that although it would mean the spending of some more money in so far as the members of this party are concerned they would be glad to acquiesce in that without any criticism of the outlay.
In these days we frequently hear of discrimination of one kind and another. We had quite a bit of discussion on the matter of discrimination this year when the Fair Employment Practices Act was under consideration, which we finally passed. But there are discriminations other than race, creed and colour. I should like to mention a couple of them. For instance, there is the discrimination against the older worker. In my opinion this represents a very serious cost in some of the government agencies. There is discrimination against women in the matter of retirement age.
The first case that comes to my mind is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, where the retirement age for men is 65 and the retirement age for women is 60. But quite apart from the matter of the retirement age there is a very real problem in the matter of re-employment for those people who are past 40 years of age and who, for one reason or another have a period of

unemployment. As they grow older the situation becomes more and more serious. Each lay-off means increasing hardship to the man or woman over 40 years of age who desires to re-enter the field of employment. Each time he or she is laid off the chance of finding employment becomes less.
I believe this is another point upon which the Department of Labour should expand its energies. I know a great deal has already been done in that regard; but it seems to me that if we are going to achieve full production in Canada, and if we are going to make life in this country worth living for all the people, we must find means of utilizing all the available productive capacity within the country.
I should like to make some remarks with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the fund that has been built up. In his introductory remarks the minister made reference to the size of the fund as of February 28, stating that it amounted to something more than $858 million. Eleven months ago, at March 31, 1952, it stood at $778 million. Despite the fact that there were increases in the benefits during the year, these figures show that the fund has steadily increased over the past few years at the rate of approximately $80 million each year.
As a matter of fact the figures show that in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948 the fund stood at $447,734,000. I have already pointed out that in February of this year it stood at something more than $858 million, almost twice the amount of five years ago. I dare say that when we have the figures for the end of March we will find that the fund is double the amount it was five years ago.
This causes one to wonder whether it was ever intended that the fund should reach such proportions. I think when this fund was first started it is very doubtful if it was ever anticipated that it would be a billion dollar fund; I doubt that very much. Of course at that time no one expected we would have so many years of steady employment for our people. At that time, of course, there were classes who were not covered but who are covered today. But despite the fact that only about half our working force is covered by unemployment insurance, the fund has grown by leaps and bounds.
This question arises, how far shall we go in building up this fund? If we think any given place is the suitable place at which to stop, how shall we go about holding it in that position? Shall we increase the benefits? Shall we lower the contributions? Or, as has

been suggested, shall we take on some other form of benefit, such as health benefits? What shall we do with this fund which has been built up, and which now stands so close to the billion dollar mark that there is practically no difference?
To my mind this is a very serious and important matter. And speaking of the size of the fund, and the fact that from year to year it increases in size, I would draw once again to the minister's attention the fact that when the benefits were increased a year or so ago, the supplementary benefits stayed at the same figure. I would urge upon the minister that he and his staff should consider seriously an increase in the amount of supplementary benefits, to bring them into line with the main benefits paid, because at the present time they are totally out of line.
Then another matter I would bring to the minister's attention in connection with unemployment insurance is regulation 5A (1), which I have mentioned on other occasions. In this connection it is well to keep in mind that the regulation has been altered twice, until at the present time it stands at a 60-day waiting period. This group of workers is the only group which is discriminated against in this manner.
I know all the reasons that are put forward by the staff of the unemployment insurance commission, and by the minister himself. I know all the excuses given for retaining this regulation on the statute books. But I say it is wrong. It is all wrong that any one group should have a special regulation levelled against it, when there are plenty of others who take every advantage they can of the provisions of the act.
As a matter of fact I could name two distinct groups of male workers who take advantage at every opportunity. I shall not mention them in particular but I know them, and I am sure the minister knows them. They take advantage of the benefits under the act at every opportunity. And I know one other group composed largely of women workers-but not necessarily married women -who in the last year in one industry put on a regular drive to take advantage of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Yet there is this one regulation, 5(a) (i), which discriminates against this one class of workers, women who are in employment, who marry, and who remain in employment. So I say once again the time has long since passed when this regulation should be removed from the regulations set up under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Indeed, it should never have been there in the first
Supply-Labour
place. It is not even sensible; and it is a rank discrimination against one group of workers who, by and large, are observing the laws of this land just as well as and perhaps better than some of those who have not had discriminatory regulations placed against them in their employment.
There is one other matter I should like to discuss, and that is the responsibility for unemployed employables, to whom I have referred on other occasions. Two years ago I went into this matter at some length and quoted briefly from the Rowell-Sirois report, and also from the report of the dominion-provincial conference.
I think this evening I could not do better than quote briefly from the remarks of Hon. Mr. Goodfellow, when he was discussing the policy of his own department in the province of Ontario. During the discussion he dwelt at some length on the position of unemployed persons and, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote what he said. In part, these were his words:
At this time, I should like to state the policy of the government in the matter of meeting the cost of assistance to unemployed persons. In our opinion, the most thorough study of responsibility for unemployment assistance was that prepared by the Sirois royal commission. The two main points made in this report are as follows:
(1)	Responsibility for the care of all unemployed employables rests with the federal government.
(2)	Responsibility for the entire residue of persons requiring public assistance rests with the provincial governments and municipalities.
In stating that assistance to unemployed persons should be a dominion function the report held that the dominion should not only accept full financial responsibility but also full control of administration. It was stated that this would entail (1) the definition of employability by the dominion; (2) the administration of aid by the dominion;
(3)	the establishment of a national employment service; and (4) the establishment of compulsory unemployment insurance.
We are all aware that a national employment service has been established and that unemployment insurance is now in force. In principle, then, the government of Canada would appear to have acknowledged responsibility for the unemployed person by assisting him to locate suitable employment and by insuring him against the risks of unemployment. Yet, we all know that there are thousands of persons who are not covered by unemployment insurance and there are many who, through extended periods of unemployment, have exhausted their insurance benefits. At these particular points the government of Canada would seem to have withdrawn from the area of responsibility and to have left a most important part of the problem to be solved by the provinces and municipalities. This can hardly be viewed as a realistic approach.
We are in entire agreement with the recommendations of the Sirois report and today we are assuming our rightful responsibility for the unemployable person. We are convinced that responsibility for the care of all unemployed employables rests with the federal government both from financial and administrative points of view.

Supply-Labour
There is no valid reason in our opinion why the government of Canada cannot render assistance to these unemployed persons who are either ineligible for insurance benefits or have exhausted their benefits. This could readily be handled through the widespread chain of employment offices already set up, and unemployment assistance rendered in the same manner as unemployment insurance cases are served. Unlike other centralized programs of the government of Canada, these employment offices are located in each centre in Canada. With such machinery at their disposal, they are well equipped to handle this problem, and to relieve the provinces and municipalities of duplication of efforts. Placement of unemployed persons is the prime goal of the national employment service. They have full knowledge of all employable persons in the various communities, including records of employment, occupations, where they might be placed elsewhere, and other pertinent information. The conclusion seems almost inescapable that they are in the best position to know the needs of the unemployed and to administer assistance until such time as they can be placed in employment.
That is as much as I propose to quote from Mr. Goodfellow's remarks, but I might say I could not agree more completely had I made the remarks myself. They are almost entirely in accord with remarks which I made in the house two years ago on the same subject.
I want to go a little bit further and point out that, quite apart from the care of the unemployed employable who for one reason or another is not eligible for insurance benefits, there is the terrific problem of the load upon the municipalities, a load which has not been too severe in the past few years because of the period of almost full employment through which we have come, but one which could very easily become almost unbearable. I say in this regard that we should carefully consider that if and when the load does become heavy, if and when the time comes that the municipalities are faced with the unique position that they receive no assistance in this field from the provincial government and none at all from the federal government, you will then have the unfortunate prospect of placing upon real estate the entire load for the relief of unemployed employables, and 1 still contend that is a responsibility which should be taken by the federal government.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, it would be sacrilege to allow this department to be dealt with by only one major speech. The first thing I want to do is to join with the minister and the hon. member for Hamilton West in paying tribute to Mr. MacNamara. I had the pleasure of working closely with him for practically the whole time he was with the Department of Labour, and in my judgment he was one of the soundest men with whom I have ever done business. He was a wonderful man to work with, and I think he did a

wonderful job in establishing the machinery of the Department of Labour because when he went there there was not very much to work with.
In my judgment the Department of Labour today is one of the most efficient departments of government, and that statement is allinclusive from the minister down to the lowest official in the department. Of course there is no need of my saying anything about the parliamentary assistant. He is here with us and all members know what a genial person he is to work with and what an efficient person he is in a committee.
I am not going to attempt to cover all the ramifications of the department. In fact I am not going to offer any criticism at all. The minister and the cabinet met both congresses of labour and received from them detailed recommendations on practically everything that has to do with the economic and social life of the country. It would be redundant for me to repeat what they said. In any event, I am not going to be able to convince the government tonight that they should do all that the congresses asked them to do.
I think the best job an opposition member can do is sell ideas to the government, and tonight I am going to repeat two ideas that I have thrown out from time to time but as yet have not been successful in having adopted. The first idea I should like to try to sell the minister is that he, his department and his officials should do some thinking on the question of industrial pensions. I have said a good many times that industrial pensions provide no security for the worker. There are a large number of industries in this country that cannot afford pensions at all. Many people can never be brought under any kind of scheme that would offer them any security at all unless the government is prepared to examine the question of industrial pensions and come around to the idea of establishing a national retiring allowance on a contributory basis, contributed to by the employer, the employee and the government, under the kind of management you have in the case of unemployment insurance.
The industrial pension is only as secure as the industry itself, and when industries get into a shaky position from time to time the first thing many of them do is cut down their pension scheme. In many cases employers object to a contributory plan. They insist on establishing a plan themselves, and of course the idea is created that it is a charitable gesture on the part of the employer when it is no such thing. In the final analysis the worker pays for it himself, because any pension contribution the employer makes is charged to the operating cost of the industry,

and it militates against the worker when he wants to negotiate wages. On the other hand it is offset against the corporation's tax, so in two ways they benefit, and it places the management of the fund completely in the hands of the industrialist himself. He works out his own regulations and fixes the scheme according to his ideas. The worker has no representation in that, and no say in the making of the regulations or the distribution of the fund. In that way most of the schemes across the country are undemocratic and ineffective.
I am going to give you an example. The Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation back about 20 years ago established a noncontributory pension fund and set aside a certain amount of money for that purpose. As I said, that was charged to the operating cost of the industry, and the retiring age is 65. The fund is administered by a board of company representatives. The maximum amount paid at age 65 runs around $75 a month, and it is as low as $19 a month. I think it would work out, on an average, to about $35 a month. There are hundreds of men who have gone out of that industry after many years without any pension. I know of a case of a man who had as much as 50 years' service in the industry, but because he was laid off sick he was not retired, and as a result he gets no pension. There are hundreds of men who have gone out of that industry in that way and despite their service, because they are laid off sick they are not entitled to a pension.
Within the past few months that company has taken this kind of action. They have notified the mine workers' union that as of a certain date, about two months ago, they are establishing a means test in their pension. If a person is retired at $75 or $35 or $40 a month, whatever the amount may be, when he reaches the age of 70 and obtains the government old age security pension, that $40 will be deducted from his company pension.
In my opinion that is a pretty backward step, in view of the fact that the president of that company, Mr. Lionel Forsyth, during the time the discussion was on in the country about the removal of the means test for the old age pension, went on record in the public press as advocating the removal of the means test in the old age pension. I presume now, from the action that has been taken within the last few months by that company, that he wanted the government's means test removed so he could establish a means test in the company pension, because that is exactly what they did.
Supply-Labour
Now, that is as secure as any industry pension may be, and I hope the time will come when the government of this country, and the industrialist who is fair-minded, will establish a national pension for the whole country. There is duplication of administration now and millions of dollars are wasted. In the final analysis it does not mean any security for the industrial worker, because it is all dependent on the balance sheets of the companies.
There is another angle to the industrial pension, and it is the matter of the older worker not being able to secure employment. The policy of the industrialists across this country today, and since 1945, is that they do not employ anyone over 40 years of age. Why do they make that decision? Why is it nation-wide? They did it for this reason. During the war most of these industrial pension schemes grew up. It was better to establish funds than to pay excess profits tax. When the war finished these companies found themselves with these pension plans in operation, and they decided they would have to adopt a policy under which they would not take on anyone over 40 years of age because those people were not going to be able to contribute enough to the fund to enable a pension to be paid by the time the worker reached 65 years of age, which is the retiring age in most of these schemes.
So, arising out of the insecure industrial pension in this country there has arisen another problem, the problem of industry fixing that 40-year age limit. I have advanced this argument in the house before, and I received support from the opposition and from the government side of the house. I also received letters from quite a few small industrialists in many sections of Canada. They told me that I was on the right track, that the industry which they operated was not big enough to establish a pension plan; and they felt kind of mean that they were not able to follow the lead of the bigger organizations.
I am leaving that idea with the minister because it would not be hard to organize this matter. He has all the machinery in the Department of Labour to handle it. The annuities branch could set up the kind of plan I have in mind, a national plan contributed to by employer, employee and the government, and I am sure you would not have to set up any additional machinery in your department. Your unemployment insurance branch could handle the job along with the work they are doing today because, in my opinion, it would not be a very big job.

Supply-Labour
I am leaving that idea with the minister and I think it should be proceeded with and a study made, at least. I am convinced that millions of dollars in cash are wasted in this country on the inadequate and insecure pension plans that exist today.
There is a second idea which I wish to leave with the minister. It has to do with the thinking we have today along the lines of a guaranteed annual minimum wage. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Hamilton West quote Walter Reuther with approval tonight. That is one of Walter Reuther's ideas, and I consider that Walter Reuther is today one of North America's outstanding labour men, sound, solid, and courageous. He has been an advocate of this for some time. A guaranteed annual minimum wage is now the policy of the auto workers' union in Canada and the United States. They have made a study of it, and the steel workers have also adopted it as one of their objectives.
The reason they do so is they know that if defence spending in the United States and defence spending in Canada falls off, the inevitable result is going to be widespread unemployment. They are sure, and I am sure despite the size of our fund, that if there were any great recession that fund would not stand up very long. If the recession was prolonged and in any way drastic, that would be the result. These organizations that are in the field of protecting workers realize the situation, and they are asking for a guaranteed annual minimum wage, a wage below which no one in the country should be permitted to work.
I think this is fair and reasonable because we have it now in many sections of the country. Our civil servants have a guaranteed annual minimum wage regardless of the productivity of the country. Their wages are fixed and they continue to draw a yearly salary, and there are approximately 140,000 of them across the country. Most people who are on salary in executive positions with large organizations across the country have guaranteed annual wages, and it is not an unreasonable request for the worker of this country who may anticipate unemployment, and who may have to take a drastic cut in his standard of living if he is obliged to live on unemployment insurance alone if a recession should be prolonged.
I think the department should give some study to that demand because it is going to be, as it is now in the United States, one of the major objectives of the whole labour movement. I think it is a reasonable one because there is nothing in the old fallacy that the social security payments and the
[Mr. Giliis.)
guaranteed annual minimum wages I am talking about tonight are money thrown away.
People say, where are you going to find the money? The prosperity of the country depends largely on keeping purchasing power in the hands of the people. If there is a recession in the automobile industry or the steel industry, but the employees of those industries get some money to buy the products of other industries, they are keeping large groups of workers employed in the other industries. This is one of the benefits of unemployment insurance. I am not going to argue it any further than that. I know the minister is going to hear a lot more about this within the next couple of years.
The third and final thing I want to mention is this. I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West that regulation 5A(1) arising out of section 35A of the main act, is rank discrimination. I have said that ever since that regulation was adopted. It is discrimination against married women. As the minister knows I have had quite a few cases, and I have dragged one of them clear to Ottawa to the umpire, but without success. It is only a regulation which the department made. The act gives them the right, of course, but the department can change that regulation.
During this session we introduced a measure to continue the payment of unemployment insurance benefits when an unemployed person becomes ill. Most or all of the cases which I have met arose because the woman concerned knew nothing about the regulations, and the employer who wrote her separation slip knew nothing about the regulations. Once that slip had gone into the office, that was the end of it. There was no changing it.
I strongly urge the minister to change that regulation or to take it out of the regulations altogether. Let the offices decide whether or not a woman is eligible. I think the act itself is good enough without that discriminatory regulation. In one of the cases, I pointed out that this woman had worked for 10 years. She got married and then went back to work and worked more than enough time, according to the provisions of the act, but she took her separation on the ground that she arrived at a condition where she had slowed up in her work. She could not get her unemployment insurance benefits. The argument made to me was that it was like fire insurance. You pay insurance for 10 or 25 years, and if your house does not burn down the premiums are not returned.

However, the fire insurance companies do not discriminate against you as to the way the fire takes place. You pay fire insurance premiums, and if the gas range sets your house on fire you will get your insurance. If lightning sets your house on fire, you will get your insurance, or if there is a faulty connection in your electrical fixtures and the house burns, you will still get your insurance. In this case the regulation differentiates between the kinds of unemployment. The woman paid for unemployment insurance, she is now unemployed, but she is deprived of her insurance because her unemployment is created in a certain way. The argument about the fire insurance is not analogous at all. It is not valid. This regulation is discriminating against that particular woman and depriving her of the insurance for which she paid. She is unemployed, and she paid for unemployment insurance. An act of nature causes this woman's unemployment, and immediately those who interpret the act seize upon that fact and say she is not entitled to unemployment insurance.
I am suggesting there are not many of these cases. I am suggesting the minister should withdraw the regulation or instruct his officers to put an advertisement in the papers all across Canada setting out the regulations. Then these women would know what they are up against, and perhaps they could find a way around it. There are lots of ways around the regulation if a woman understands it. In the case I have known the woman and the employer have both told the truth, and the woman has been penalized. The minister is a sound, reasonable and charitable person, and I suggest he should consult with his efficient group of officials. They could decide to remove the regulation for a while and see how it works. You can always put it back again if it is not working satisfactorily. Let us make a try at curing that headache, because it is a headache. I seem to be running into all the cases, because the member for Hamilton West and I are the only two people who talk about it.
That is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Chairman.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have heard some well-deserved compliments paid to the employees of the minister's department. Within the last few days I have had called to my attention the fact that the average weekly wage of all employees, including the managers, in the Georgian bay branch of the unemployment insurance department is $46.12. The prevailing wage rate for all Canada is $55.63. Now, I was never a believer in paying for efficiency on the basis of the place in which the efficiency is located. I believe 68108-3431
Supply-Labour
in paying people for the job they are doing, irrespective of whether they are located in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or the Georgian bay district.
Since I reside in the Georgian bay district, I know that the cost of living there is almost equal to the cost of living in the city of Toronto. If that is the average wage being paid to all employees, including managers, I do not believe it is sufficient. The civil service officials should have this brought to their attention. I am sure they will find that is not an adequate sum to pay civil servants of the minister's department in the Georgian bay branch. I am speaking about a district I know.
There is another matter which I should like to mention. We have compensation insurance throughout Canada which covers most employees, but as yet not one of the provinces has come forward to say that it is going to introduce compulsory compensation insurance for farm workers. The result has been that we have young men and women working on the farms, in positions that are absolutely essential to the progress of this country, who are injured. A young man working on a farm may lose an arm in a threshing machine. The farmer says, "Well, Joe, I am sorry; I shall help you pay the doctor bill if I can." This young man will wander up and down this country with an arm or leg missing, but he will receive no compensation. In the provincial and federal governments we are all men over 21, and it is almost time for this government or whatever government we may have after the election to tell the provinces that they should provide compensation for the workers. All workers should be treated in the same manner as the factory workers are treated. The federal government should tell the provinces that if they do not protect every employee against being maimed, then the dominion government will do so.
It does not behoove my hon. friend to smirk or smile when I am talking on a subject of this nature. There is another item I want to mention to the hon. member for Cape Breton South. We should institute a system of compulsory savings for every worker in the dominion. When that regulation was in force during the war, the workers contributed-probably reluctantly-but when they received the return of their savings they wondered where the fairy godmother had been. Let us start some sort of system that will make the great masses of people save their money for their unemployment, for their old age or for their hospitalization. We all know-we have lived long enough to do so-as past experience will tell us,

Supply-Labour
that people will not save for these eventualities. There must be some form of compulsory saving contributed to by the employer and by the worker from the very day he commences work. We are going to have to come to it.
It should not be a burden but it should be a pleasure for the federal government, through the Department of Labour, to lay out plans as quickly as possible to make people provide for themselves with respect to unemployment, old age and sickness. We all have a tendency to squander our means. We all have a tendency to put off today what we can do tomorrow. The great masses of Canadians and of the other people throughout this world will not do these essential things without compulsion. We as members of parliament know it. We are sent here to represent the people. It is almost time we were men enough to enact laws to make people protect themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I regret that at this time of night it is necessary to detain the committee for a few minutes; but this is an extremely important department. Although I shall endeavour to refrain from repeating some of the arguments and suggestions that have been put forward by those who have already spoken in this debate, there are a few things I should like to say.
First of all, I am glad to know that the officials in the Department of Labour are about to undertake a thorough study of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. As hon. members know, not many days ago the house passed a motion concurring in the recommendation of the industrial relations committee that the principle of the check-off of trade union dues should be studied by the government. When the committee made that recommendation endorsing the principle of the check-off of trade union dues, it had been advised that it was the intention of the Department of Labour to review the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and it was the thought of the committee that that review might well include a study of this question of the check-off.
I do not propose to spend any more time tonight on that question of the check-off because the house, after voting down my bill many times, has endorsed that principle and has asked the Department of Labour to study it. But what I wish to draw attention to is that a study is to be made not only of the principle of the check-off but of the whole of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. That means there is to be a study of labour matters generally. As the officials of the department are making

that study I hope they will pay attention to the suggestions that have been made by various members here tonight.
I feel that particular attention should be paid to the suggestion that has just been made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, particularly with respect to the question of a guaranteed annual minimum wage. I shall not take the time to develop his arguments any further. I think he made the case very well. Surely all of us must recognize that those who work in industry have just as much claim to the guarantee of a year-round livelihood as have those who own industry or are its captains. There are those who may wonder just how a plan such as that could be worked out. I hold in my hand a newspaper clipping which contains several comments on this matter and at this point I think I might put on the record one paragraph which reads as follows:
The primary purpose, of course, is to stimulate management to provide steady, full-time employment throughout the year. Nobody is asking for a hand-out. What is wanted is jobs-year-round jobs.
I just thought it should be made clear that when labour is asking for consideration of the guaranteed annual minimum wage, labour is not asking for a long period of idleness. Labour is asking for the opportunity to put in a full year's work, but to have the guarantee of a year-round livelihood to which it is entitled.
I think also that the comments made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South on the question of industrial pensions should be studied. We are making progress, slow though it may be, in this country in the field of social security. I hope it will not be thought by the government that, because we have a universal old age pension plan at what is now too low a rate, that is the end of the story. I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton South is perfectly right in his suggestion that there are many industrial pension plans which have some real inadequacies. I believe it would be a real service to labour and to the community generally if the government were to give some thought to providing some sort of master plan into which these various industrial pension plans might be meshed.
I now move on to one or two other matters. In common with those who have preceded me, I welcome the announcement made by the Minister of Labour that a woman is to be appointed to a senior position in the department with the job of developing a women's bureau. I am glad to know that there is in the estimates an item for the expenses of such a women's bureau. I am sure that whoever is appointed to undertake this work will

have the good wishes of parliament as a whole and of the people of this country.
Likewise I wish to join with the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Cape Breton South in saying that, despite all the efforts that have been made by the departmental officials to explain to us the reason for the discrimination against married women under the Unemployment Insurance Act, I still think it is a form of discrimination. There have been some improvements and some lessening in the discrimination since the regulation was first made, but I hope these representations will likewise be listened to and studied by the officials in the Department of Labour.
I come back to what I said at the start. Despite the satisfaction the minister and the officials may feel with respect to their legislation and their arrangements generally, I am glad we have this assurance that the whole field of labour matters is to be studied. I trust that these things which have been discussed tonight will be included in that study.
Amongst the items which I feel should be studied, and one to which I give high priority, is the question of the unemployment insurance benefit rates. As is now fairly generally known, the amount of money in the unemployment insurance fund is now approaching the billion dollar mark. As it approaches that mark, pressures develop for some change to be made. On the one side there are those who think the right move to make is to reduce the premiums and allow the fund to fall a bit in that way. Personally I do not think that would be a good move at all. I believe a good case is made out by those who contend that the unemployment insurance fund is now overfunded and that the time has come for what might be called a dividend to be paid to those who in the last decade have been responsible for overfunding that fund. Surely the most reasonable, most sensible way in which to pay what might be called a premium or a dividend would be to increase the amount of the benefit.
There is of course an argument as to the need for a higher rate of benefit, because of the cost of living; but it is also quite obvious now, with the fund as large as it is, that it is possible to increase the rate of that benefit. I know that a number of years ago if one had suggested a rate of unemployment benefit higher than what we now have, there were those who would have thought that that was a matter of subsidizing idleness, but we have gotten away from that now. We know in the terms of the quotation I read from the labour publication not long ago
Supply-Labour
that labour is not asking for subsidized idleness. Labour wants to make its contribution to the production of wealth in this country; but having played its part in the production of that wealth, it feels that it is just as much entitled to security as is industry and management itself.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge very strongly upon the officials of the Department of Labour, upon the unemployment insurance commission, upon the government, a very thorough study of this question of the need for increasing the unemployment insurance benefit and the possibility of doing it in view of the very large amount that is now in the unemployment insurance fund.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to the fact that the views of labour generally are well known to the government because of the annual presentations that are made to the cabinet by the various labour conferences. If time permitted, it would be valuable to put on the record again some of the points that have been made in these briefs. I simply draw attention to the fact that they have urged very strongly that consideration be given to a national health insurance program and to a program of sickness benefits.
Hon. members have heard these words fall from our lips a good many times during the course of this session, indeed a good many times during the course of this parliament-But I suggest to hon. members that they will continue to hear from us about these matters; until they are achieved. Again I suggest that we are not asking for something for nothing; we are not asking for gifts out of thim air. Rather we are asking that we appropriate part of the wealth that the workers of this country help to produce for this desirable and well-deserved social purpose.
1 have no intention of using the labour estimates, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of developing another speech on health insurance. You have already done me the honour of saying that you have read one of them; but I do draw to the attention of the Minister of Labour and the officials in that department the fact that this rates very high with the working people of this country as the next step that certainly needs to be taken, and as the next step which the workers who produce so much wealth in this country deserve to have taken.
I shall content myself with just one other matter about which I should like to say a word or two. I was quite interested in learning some time ago of a very interesting and important convention which was adopted at Geneva on June 28 last year by the international labour conference of which Canada is

Supply-Labour
a member. As some hon. members may know, the convention which I have in mind is convention 102 of the international labour organization, entitled "Convention concerning minimum standards of social security." It is a very interesting document, and I wish to thank the Department of Labour for furnishing me with a copy of it, and I am also grateful to the department for certain information they have given me concerning this convention. I received this information both by letter directly from the department and by means of a sessional paper which was tabled the other day by the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary assistant.
I am not going to take the time to tell the committee everything that is in this convention. Since it deals with the minimum standards of social security, obviously that is what it is about. It refers to nine branches of social security: medical care; sickness benefits; unemployment benefit; old age benefit; employment injury benefit; family benefit; maternity benefit; invalidity benefit; survivors' benefit.
My understanding in connection with this convention is that a member state which has ratified must, in order to support that ratification, meet the minimum standard in at least three of these branches set out in the convention itself, including one branch of three or four that are named in particular. It so happens that not only has Canada ratified this convention but Canada can claim to support that ratification by virtue of the fact that the federal government has programs which fall within three of these branches. And by the way, that assertion is made in sessional paper No. 73-A, which was tabled a few days ago, and to which I referred a moment ago.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that for an advanced country such as Canada just to get under the wire in this field of security is hardly good enough. We are a responsible member state of the international labour organization, and since we have agreed to a convention which sets out minimum standards in nine fields of social security, I hope the day is not far off when the federal government will be able to point out that we have met these standards in more than just the three fields.
The main reason I chose to refer to this ILO convention of minimum standards of social security is that something shocked me when I read this sessional paper No. 73-A which was tabled, as I say, just a few days ago. I had asked a number of questions about this convention, one of which was:
How did Canada vote on the adoption of the said conventions?
IMr. Knowles.]
The answer was:
The Canadian government delegates voted for the convention. The Canadian worker delegate voted for the convention. The Canadian employer delegate voted against the convention.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, it came as a shock to me to realize that when we had before the conference at Geneva last June a convention setting out such minimum standards as are contained in this document, the delegate representing the employers of Canada chose to vote against it. To complete the record, I find that the total vote was 123 in favour of the convention and 33 against it, and those are individual votes. Hon. members will realize that there are 60 member states in the international labour organization, and that each state has a government representative, an employer representative and an employee representative. In all oases these representatives vote individually, without being directed or influenced by the others. In other words the Canadian employer delegate is a free agent, as we would want him to be in an organization of that kind.
But when you add them all up and find that all the member governments that vote at all voted for the convention, and when you add up the rest of the figures and find that some employer delegates from other countries voted for it then, as I say, to me it was a shock to find that the Canadian employer delegate could not see his way clear to go along with the government and employee delegates and support the ratification of this document respecting minimum standards.
There are those in the house and in the country who complain-and it is their right if they wish to do so-because some of us seem always to be fighting the cause of the workers in this country. We are told that we are dividing the community. Mr. Chairman, this is what we are up against. This is what the workers of Canada are up against -when it is proposed at an international conference that there shall be established, as a guide to the nations of the world, a set of minimum standards of social security, and when every government there that votes at all votes for it, and when all the employee delegates vote for it, as well as the employer delegates from some other countries, yet the employer delegate from Canada votes against it.
I submit it is time for some more education among that group in this country, so they may come to realize the justice and validity of the claim of the workers, along with the farmers and all those who produce the wealth of this country, to their fair

share of what they produce, in terms of an adequate standard of living, in terms of something that cannot be provided by individuals alone, namely security against those things that hit us and over which we have no control.
So I express the hope that the next time a vote like that is to be taken there may have been some enlightenment among that other group. I also hope it will not be long until the Canadian federal government will be able to say, not that it just got under the wire by having programs that meet the minimum standards in three fields, but that it will have programs that meet the minimum standards in all nine fields of this very interesting and very significant document.
I am prepared to let it go at that, on the first item at any rate. But I do urge most earnestly that the study which the minister's officials are to undertake in respect of labour matters be a thorough and conscientious study of all these things that are of concern to the workers in this country, and a thorough and conscientious study of what we believe to be the rights of the workers of Canada.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take about half a minute to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Cape Breton South in regard to what he had to say about an industrial pension. I think it is an absolute must in this country, and I want to say why.
Most workers have to retire at the age of 65. The old age pension does not take effect until the age of 70, and thus there is a gap of five years which has to be filled in some way. The great majority of workers today have not been able to save up enough money to tide them over that period of time. Many firms today have no pension plan. The reason they do not is that if their competitors do not have to bear the cost of a plan, the addition of the cost of such a plan to their cost of production would price them out of the market.
I know from practical experience that if all firms throughout this country were required to contribute toward a universal industrial pension, they would welcome it; because then their competitors would have to bear exactly the same increase in cost as they do. I feel this would be a very popular move, both for management and labour; and I urge the minister to do everything he can to push forward what I consider to be a very desirable and necessary measure.
Supply-Labour


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to make a few remarks about industrial pensions. However, I shall support what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I shall support, too, what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who said everything I had intended to say, and a great deal more besides.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to hold up the committee, but I must say that the estimates of the Department of Labour have been discussed in such an interesting fashion this evening that I felt I would have to make one or two comments.
I think the real solution was provided by the hon. member for Simcoe North. I imagine he was speaking for the Progressive Conservative party when he said, "What we have to do is bring in a law that forces everybody to provide for his old age." Well, that is a new approach, I must say, for a representative of the Progressive Conservative party. I would be interested in having some elaboration upon it, and some explanation as to just how it would be accomplished. Perhaps we could have that before the evening closes.
I was interested particularly in the efforts made by all speakers to try to impress upon the Minister of Labour the importance of having something done by the federal government to make it possible for the workers of Canada to have security. We all realize that that would be an ideal, and a very important ideal, toward which to work-that is, to have arrangements made so that all our workers shall have security.
But do not limit it to workers. I think we have to keep in mind that the measure of security we have for Canadians ought to be indivisible. That is, if it is good for one group, it ought to be good for the others. Let us keep them all in mind. And when we are all talking about guaranteed minimum annual wages, let us not just make it for the labouring class. Let us see that we all have a chance at it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Do you not consider yourself to be in the labouring class?


Solon Earl Low: Well, the hours we keep here would lead me to suspect that we are.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I believe we are.


Solon Earl Low: I suppose we are doing our share of labour. But while we are talking about the necessity for merging all these industrial pensions throughout the country into some form of national pension, or retirement allowance, it brings me right back to what you are struggling for, and what we have been

Supply-Labour
talking about for a long time, namely a national dividend. That is what it is. It is a form of income for the people of Canada which would give them a measure of security, all of them.
But in approaching this whole matter let me just say this, and I am repeating what was said by Mr. Walter Reuther in a speech at Windsor early this spring, which I believe is quite correct. He said what we have to prove to the world is that we in the western democracies know how to achieve full employment in peacetime, and that we know enough to link full employment in peacetime with full distribution in peacetime. That is the goal to which we are working. We will not achieve full employment in peacetime and full distribution in peacetime until we recognize the necessity of seeing to it that purchasing power, in quantities sufficient to buy what Canada produces, is distributed into the hands of the consumers in this country.
Now, you must also see to it that this purchasing power is distributed to consumers in such a way that it first does not pass through the channels of industry. Otherwise it is going to push up costs and reflect itself in prices, and you start the old spiral with which you can never catch up. That is the situation we have to face, and we might just as well face it. We have talked tonight about the unemployment insurance fund being overfunded now. By overfunding we are just forcing people to save. That is what my hon. friend from Simcoe North suggested. We are simply forcing them to save.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is the stability of the world, saving.


Solon Earl Low: Then we have the Minister of Finance making a statement reported in the press yesterday to the effect that there is too much credit buying in Canada, that there is so much credit buying that it is going to adversely affect the stability of the Canadian economy. I ask the hon. member for Simcoe North and a good many others: Why is the Minister of Finance worried about credit buying today? Why is there so much credit buying? Because there are so many consumer goods to be bought that people have not the cash to buy them, so they are being urged to buy them on extended payment plans, a dollar down and a dollar when they can chase one up. There is the story. In other words we have worked ourselves now into a surplus economy, and the overfunding of the unemployment insurance fund does nothing more or less than aggravate the surplus condition in our economy.

Every time you go out and say to the people "We are going to force you to save", with the result that you overfund a fund, you are just creating more chaos with which the Minister of Finance has to deal when he talks to the Canadian people about some measure of stability for our economy. I think we have to use some sense in these things and get down to reality.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


Solon Earl Low: Certainly.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is this the same plan that was introduced by your province when they could not pay their debts on their bonds?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Peace River not to discuss the subject matter of the question put by the hon. member for Simcoe North.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much. I am saved.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Saved by the bell.


Solon Earl Low: All I want to say is that I think if we in this house of parliament would begin to merge and pool our brains we could work out a scheme for all Canada that would stabilize our economy and which would make it possible for us to achieve a full employment economy and hook it to a full distribution economy in peacetime.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Solon Earl Low: It is too important a matter just to say "carried", even though it is late. Let me say to the Minister of Labour that this is the most important problem facing the free world today. I agree with Mr. Walter Reuther when he says that if we do not solve the problem of achieving a full employment-full distribution economy in peacetime we cannot preserve freedom in this world. That is how important it is; and when I heard so many speakers tonight talking about security for labour I felt that we had better get down to bedrock and find some way of getting purchasing power into the hands of the consumers of the country so they can buy what we produce, and so we will have a full distribution economy.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think hon. members who have contributed so well and in such an interesting and constructive fashion to this debate would prefer me not to go into the various points in detail at this hour. I should like to do so on certain points of interest, but with respect to many of them the request at the end of the speaker's remarks was that the Department of Labour take the proposal into

consideration. I can assure all hon. members who have spoken that we will undertake to do that following the end of the session with respect to those points that come within the jurisdiction of the government, although I do not think some of them do.
There were two points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning which I should like to make a short comment. He stated that Canada only came under the line in its social security measures in comparison with the standard set by the ILO convention. I think he was not quite fair in that he did not add those social security measures which exist in the ten provinces of Canada and which you must take into account if you are going to compare social security measures within Canada with those within a unitary state such as the United Kingdom.
I am not going to enlarge on that point, but inherent in it is the reason Canada's employer delegates voted against the convention. Our government delegates would have preferred, as would the employer delegates, if ILO had made it a recommendation. We felt that because of our split jurisdiction the principle inherent in the recommendation could have just as effectively been carried out if it had been left as a recommendation, but we felt too that Canada as a country should not vote against the recommendation. The employer delegates felt the other way and so voted against it. But I would not like the impression to be left that Canada's employer delegates voted against the principle involved because they were not against the principle involved.
Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I should just like to express my gratitude for the constructive manner and the high level on which this discussion has been carried on so far, and I will answer any questions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
181.	Annuities Act-administration, $916,085.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise simply to express my
regret that the government did not see fit to go forward with the bill to amend the Annuities Act which was before parliament in 1951, had second reading, went to the committee and received the endorsation of the committee. I regret that in the sessions that have followed since that time the government has not seen fit to reintroduce that legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
182.	Fair wages, conciliation, industrial relations, industrial disputes investigations, including the administration of legislation relating thereto, and for activities re promotion of co-operation in industry between labour and management, $446,627.
Supply-Labour
Mr. McLure:: I am going to take hardly any time at all. I would have liked to speak on the first item, but I know that time is rather precious and it is getting late. I want to ask one favour of the Minister of Labour. In Charlottetown we have machine shops. Recently I have had telegrams, as I believe the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Labour have had, stating that the machine shops are closed because no work was given them by the Department of Defence Production. Without elaborating on the matter at all, I want to ask the Minister of Labour to urge the Minister of Defence Production and other ministers that something be done to provide work for the 200 men who have been laid off. It would be a good idea to do a little decentralizing and give our machine shops an opportunity. They have qualified men who can do all kinds of repairs. What we have done in the past is proof that we have the men to do the work. I ask that favour of the Minister of Labour.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall give consideration to my hon. friend's request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
185. Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $136,183.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise simply to say something I have wanted to say in other years but have let the item go by without doing so. I simply wish to say that those who edit and publish the Labour Gazette do a good job.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
193. To provide for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council, $66,780.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I notice a great reduction in the appropriation for this item, and may I ask the minister if it is the educational council grant that we are holding up?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman. Last year we had some very special items which arose out of the recommendations made by the manpower council. In other words it was terminal allowances, stockpiling certain material against emergency. It does not reappear this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
195.	To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need, including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
persons already immigrated to Canada; administrative expenses connected therewith and to provide for expenditures under agreements with the provinces authorized by the governor in council, $993,832,
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Here again we have a 10 per cent decrease. Will the minister explain?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This provides for expenses incurred for moving workers in Canada.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The reason is that under the later planned arrangements for workers coming into Canada, more workers are coming in during the open seasons. Consequently our hostels are not as greatly used while waiting for them to go out to work. I should say that the saving there comes about by a great improvement in the routing of incoming workers to their places of work after they arrive in Canada.


A. Earl Catherwood: Does the minister not feel that the matter of farm labour is just as important as in previous years?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Just as important, and the
annual conferences with the provincial departments are being held as usual.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
196.	To provide for payments to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, and administrative expenses connected therewith, $195,333.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, the amount unused here would indicate a lack of requirements, I would think. I wonder if the minister would explain item 20 on page 250, "Appropriation not required for 1953-54." It is in the middle of the page-
Vocational training for discharged members of Canada's armed forces, etc.
Has this particular requirement lapsed?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It has not lapsed, Mr. Chairman. The rehabilitation of veterans of the second world war, as far as our department is concerned, is practically nil. At that time the rehabilitation facilities in which we co-operated had not started for veterans from Korea. That will probably be moved into this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
197.	Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $25,895,106.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May we assume, as I believe we can, from what the minister said in the

course of his discussion of the first item, that in his assurance that all suggestions made tonight would be studied he includes suggestions made with respect to unemployment insurance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Most certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder if the minister will say why we may expect an increase of one-third in the casual employees? If the minister will refer to page 253 he will find an increase from $927,000 to $1,300,000.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend knows, during our seasonal unemployment period in the wintertime the work in our local offices goes up very rapidly. If we were to keep permanent employees sufficient to cope with that work in the winter we would have too many in the summer. We have been adopting more and more a policy of taking on casual employees in the wintertime and, as a bit of an experiment to help solve the older worker problem, older clerical workers who are qualified for that work where appropriate are being called in to help with the work in the wintertime. That is the reason for the increase in casual employees.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This increase in casual employees does not seem to be reflected in any other part of the estimates, in a lessening of staff or in any other regard.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, but it has made it possible to keep from increasing the permanent staff which we would have had to do otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Field and inspectional service, Canada-
61. Operation and maintenance, including $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $5,204,217.
Louis-René Beaudoin: The general discussion on this department has taken place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Pensions and other benefits-
677. To authorize the governor in council to regard the election to count prior service for the purposes of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, made by the public curator of the province of Quebec on behalf of Georges Rene Boivin, a contributor, as a valid election pursuant to section 5 of that act, $1.
Howard Charles Green: Can the Minister of National Defence explain this item?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, this point is rather technical and will require some explanation. Mr. Georges Rene Boivin, a veteran of world war I with "on active service" status, was

appointed to a temporary position within the Department of National Defence in 1922.
In March, 1951, he was made permanent with the option under section 5 of the Civil Service Superannuation Act of electing to count all or part of his temporary service time for superannuation purposes, provided he exercised the right of election within one year from the date of becoming a contributor and arranged for the payment of proper superannuation fund contributions in respect of the period of temporary service so elected.
In January, 1952, this department was advised that Mr. Boivin had been confined to hospital for an indefinite period because of a mental illness, and that in view of his mental incompetency his affairs had been placed in the hands of the public curator of the province of Quebec.
Under date of January 23, 1952, the superannuation branch of the Department of Finance informed this department that an election by the public curator on Mr. Boivin's behalf regarding the counting of his temporary service time for superannuation purposes would be accepted.
Such an election was made by the curator on April 1, 1952. Mr. Boivin, having reached the age of 65, was retired in October, 1952, with the classification of stationary engineer (heating or power) grade 1 and was granted an annual superannuation allowance of $1,002.90 based on total service time of 26 years and 11 months. Notification was received that Mr. Boivin reassumed responsibility for the administration of his affairs on December 9,	1952. The superannuation
branch of the Department of Finance now advises that Mr. Boivin's statutory period of right of election expired on March 13, 1952, thus rendering invalid the election form completed by the curator on April 1, 1952. The superannuation branch further instructed that Mr. Boivin's annual allowance, previously computed at $1,002.90 based on 26 years and 11 months, be recalculated using a period of one year and three months which in effect virtually deprives him of his superannuation allowance.
In the opinion of treasury board staff the Civil Service Superannuation Act gives no discretionary authority to either the governor in council or treasury board to alter the statutory one-year election period regardless of the circumstances. It appears, therefore, that the only means by which Mr. Boivin's superannuation allowance can be restored to him is by insertion in the estimates of the attached item for which there seems to be very strong compassionate grounds.
Supply-National Defence


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

["I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:\nOttawa, May 13, 1953.\nSir:\nI have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at eleven-thirty o'clock p.m. on the 14th May, 1953, for the purpose of proroguing the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament.\nI have the honour to be, sir,\nYour obedient servant,\n8. F. Delaute,\nSecretary to the Governor General (Administrative)"]
Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: 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 sums of $2,670,917,028.82 and $41,237,118, respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 368, 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 and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954, the sums of $2,670,917,028.82 and $41,237,118, respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a second time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
['the second reading of the bill.']
James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have not a copy of the bill, so we have not the figures. Would you read the figures?


Louis-René Beaudoin: This is the bill which has been introduced following the resolution that was adopted in committee a moment ago. I think I read all the figures. Does the hon. member wish me to read the figures again?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want you to read the main figures again.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The sum of $2,670,917,028.82.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want the difference between that and the amount in the estimates of $2,768 million.


Louis-René Beaudoin: There is another amount of $41,237,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall section 1 carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There must be someone who knows how that figure is arrived at.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think it is customary for these sections to go through without any explanation because it is purely a matter of arithmetic. If the hon. member wishes to raise this point he has just raised I might say that this bill, when passed, will be appropriation bill No. 3 of 1953. The previous bills passed at this session were appropriation act No. 1, which granted interim supply for the two-months period ending May 31, plus additional proportions of certain special items totalling $537,674,515.18. Then there was appropriation act No. 2, covering the end of the year further supplementary estimates for 1952-1953, passed by the house around the end of March. After taking into account appropriation act No. 1 and appropriation act No. 2, to which I have just referred, this present bill, being appropriation act No. 3, will grant the balance of the main estimates for the fiscal year 1953-54 as well as the total of the supplementary estimates which my colleague the Minister of Finance tabled on Wednesday, April 29. I understand that covers the whole picture.-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
I going to say anything more about it, but in times past we have had these figures in such a way that we could see them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am informed not, but perhaps my hon. friend is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 inclusive agreed to.
On schedule A.
['I am informed not, but perhaps my hon. friend is right.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask if the schedule has in it item 487? Have you, sir, the printed copy, and if so what is the amount?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Item 487 is for $127,148.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine; I just wanted to make sure it had been reduced.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
['That is fine; I just wanted to make sure it had been reduced.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, May 13, 1953.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at eleven-thirty o'clock p.m. on the 14th May, 1953, for the purpose of proroguing the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
8. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Cole (SI. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, may I revert to motions in order to answer question No. 11 in the name of Mr. Hansell.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



IMPORTATIONS OF COAL

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many tons of coal were Imported to Canada in 19527
2.	From what countries was this coal imported, and how much from each country?
3.	How much coal was used by the Canadian National Railways in 1952?
4.	How much imported coal was used by the Canadian National Railways in 1952?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Return tabled.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I am not striving to have the last word, but I should like to have leave to table an order for return dated December 17, moved by Mr. Brooks, reports from January 1, 1951 to date, received by the Department of National Defence respecting surveys and inspections in New Brunswick; another one dated January 14, 1953, Mr. Brooks, correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick; and another one dated February 19, 1953, Mr. Diefenbaker, for a copy of all reports made to the Department of National Defence.
In this connection I may say that the reports we have received and are able to find con-

tain names which, by the consent of the hon. members, I have left out of the return. I still feel that there are other reports that we have not been able to find. However, we have not been able to find them. Then there is another one dated May 6, 1953, Mr. Cardiff, C-5 flights, since January 1, 1951.



CO-OPERATION OF MEMBERS    TRIBUTES TO MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: May I say that it will be necessary for us to wait a few minutes at least until we have a report from the Senate with respect to the supply bill. May I take this opportunity of thanking all hon. members for the splendid co-operation which they have given me during my term as Speaker of the House of Commons. I can say with the deepest sincerity that the co-operation and kindness which I have received at all times from members from both sides of the house have made my term of office extremely pleasant, and an experience which I shall remember and prize for the rest of my life.
When we return from the Senate I shall be happy indeed to greet the members of the House of Commons and the members of the press gallery so that I can wish them all many happy returns.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members of the official opposition, I should like to thank you for the words you have just expressed to us. 1 suppose that the members of the various opposition parties are the ones who usually wonder about the actions of the Speaker. That result follows from our position to Your Honour's left. But may I say that throughout the whole of your term of office we have regarded you as being eminently fair, deeply understanding and with a fine sense of humour which has saved trouble on many occasions. Furthermore, and perhaps best of all, we regard you as a firm friend. We wish you the very best of luck in whatever endeavours you may undertake in the future.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those associated with me, I want to endorse every word the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has just said. After all, those of us who sit in the opposition realize that the Speaker is an extremely important person in the House of Commons, and that one of his primary duties is to protect the rights of the minority. You have done that admirably, may I say. I feel that all members of the house, on all sides, owe you a great debt of gratitude for the manner in which you have conducted the business of this house.
House of Commons
May I say too that I wish to express our thanks to the Deputy Speaker and to the deputy chairman of committees, both of whom have deputized for you from time to time and have done so with acceptance and with dignity. We join in wishing you long years in which to remember the distinguished position you have held as the first commoner of Canada. Long may you enjoy it.


Solon Earl Low: I certainly do wish to join with all that has been said by the other two speakers who have preceded me, in expressing thanks to you for the exceptional service you have rendered as the Speaker of this house. Your eminent fairness, your kindness and consideration at all times have won you warm, loyal and lasting friends amongst whom I hope I shall always be one. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to say a word about the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees. I doubt that we have ever seen in this house a stronger and more capable group of chairmen of committees. Certainly that has been my experience, and this year will go down in history.
I join with others, Mr. Speaker, in wishing you long years of contented happiness, and I think I can safely say real achievement as well.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sure it is a great pleasure for all the rest of us, Mr. Speaker, in this chamber to join in the words that have been so well said by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Green), the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low). It has been to all of us-and this makes it unanimous-a pleasure to sit in this house during the tenure of office of yourself, of the Deputy Speaker and of the deputy chairman of committees, because we always knew that no matter how hot the flare-up would be, after you had given your careful consideration, thought and study to it the result would be a sincere expression of sound opinion on your part, designed to carry the business of the house forward in a dignified and well conceived manner.
We on the government side of the house would like to join with all the others in thanking you and your deputy and the deputy chairman of committees for that example which you have set to future holders of the offices that you have adorned during this parliament.
(Translation):


Mr. L. D. Tremblay (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, even though, because of the very

House of Commons
nature of the duties which I have had the honour to perform during this last parliament, I have not often had an opportunity to rise in this house, I think that there would certainly be something lacking in the compliments which have just been extended to you by your English-speaking colleagues were not a French-speaking member from the province of Quebec to join with others in expressing our appreciation for the way in which you have discharged, first of all, your duties as Speaker, for the distinction which you have brought to the discharge of this task, and then, more particularly perhaps, for what I may call-I hope I may be forgiven if I use this term-your kindly weakness towards all French-speaking members of this house and your scrupulously fair attitude towards her majesty the French tongue, which you have mastered so well.
Following an old and well established tradition, French Canadians and everything that is French get along extremely well with everything that is Scottish. Now as you are the very model of the Scottish gentleman, it will surprise nobody that we should have gotten along so well together.
I rejoice in the fact that we were elected together in 1935. I have always followed, not only with interest but with much pleasure, indeed with pride, your gradual rise in this house. You have always been worthy of the task and, in closing this last session of the present parliament, I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your generosity toward us. Long live the Speaker!
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: When I spoke earlier this evening and thanked hon. members for the cooperation they have given me I thought that was the last word. I have been taken entirely by surprise by the kind expressions which have been made this evening by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Green), by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Cold-well), by the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) et par le depute de Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay).
The position of Speaker, I know you all realize, is not an easy one. At times it is very trying; at times it is a very difficult position. But it has its compensations; many other times it is a very desirable position to hold, which I hope many of you may hold in the days to come.
Whether or not it is difficult depends entirely on the attitude of the members of the House of Commons. They can make the

position a pleasant and enjoyable one. On the other hand they can make it a very difficult and a very unpleasant one. In this parliament I have been blessed by having members on both sides whose aim has been to abide by the rules of the house, and not to break the rules and do those things which they know they should not do, but which they might possibly get away with. That has not been the spirit of the members of this parliament; and for that reason you have made my task a comparatively easy one.
As I said before, I shall look back on these years with considerable satisfaction and with great joy. Probably more than all, I shall recall the many happy associations which we have had with one another not only in the chamber but on certain occasions outside this chamber. It has been a very happy four years for me, and for that happiness I thank you; and for the kind words you have said this evening I also thank you.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Rolande Jacqueline Lortie Nugent.
An act for the relief of Alice Cecilia Anne Magniac Parker.
An act for the relief of Therese Monette Lax.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Paul Edward Tremblay.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Maurice Leveille.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Bernard Gordon Smith.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Anne O'Connor Shapiro.
An act for the relief of Beryl Mildred Taylor Leckie.
An act for the relief of Eileen Margaret Amos Trudeau.
An act for the relief of Florence Mae Mitchell Anderson.
An act for the relief of Sidney William Donald Butler.
An act for the relief of Adele Roberta Jeffrey.
An act for the relief of Margaret Bell Favreau
An act for the relief of Lena Herman Besner
An act for the relief of Muriel Luella Sproston Kerr.
An act for the relief of Ruth Steirman Fernley.
An act for the relief of Milorad Aragian.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Angus Eaton Hewitt.
An act for the relief of Clarence Albert Edwards.
An act for the relief of Issie Adler.
An act for the relief of Jean Shelvington Parnell Adams.

An act for the relief of Peggy Louise Miller McCallum.
An act for the relief of Jean Paul Gauthier.
An act for the relief of Bernice Catherine MacDonald Crawford.
An act for the relief of Horst Wilhelm Wossidlo.
An act for the relief of Nick Sauchuk.
An act for the relief of Rita Frost Siversky.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Gotlieb Slobotsky.
An act for the relief of Georgina Julia Rose Charland.
An act for the relief of Margaret Violet Creasor McKenna.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Snell Meloche.
An act for the relief of Henry George Maxham.
An act for the relief of Marjorie Evelyn Lee Stevens.
An act for the relief of Queenie Isabel Brambell Muchan.
An act for the relief of Bessie Mabel Witcomb Elson.
An act for the relief of Catherine Maine McKenzie Woods.
An act for the relief of Robert Edward Francis Clements.
An act for the relief of Agnes Jackson Stroud Earle.
An act for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Irene Gray Brideau.
An act for the relief of Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois Crowe, otherwise known as Marie Claire Marcelle Suzanne Langlois Cockell.
An act for the relief of Janina Jenny Spaiches Remeikis.
An act for the relief of Ruth Sanel Kolofsky.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Pauline	Tratenberg
Goldman.
An act for the relief of Molly Klau Lust.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Charlotte Freeman
Pelletier.
An act for the relief of Olive Spencer Thompson.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Sanger Anderson Morris.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Helen	Vera Cater
Morgan.
An act for the relief of Theresa Hynes Gnatiuk.
An act for the relief of Anna Kobitowich Gordon.
An act for the relief of Mary Viola Yolanda Decorato	Roy,	otherwise	known as	Mary Viola
Yolanda Decorato King.
An act for the relief of Vincent John Laviolette.
An act for the relief of Eileen Arthur Osborne Prescott.
An act for the relief of Margaret Aziz Salhany.
An act for the relief of Margaret Parker Graves.
An act for the relief of Audrey Jane Clements Patterson.
An act for the relief of Roland Masson.
An act for the relief of Clara Doris Jacobovitch Shepherd.
An act for the relief of Doris Esther Kimel Schwartz.
An act for the relief of Hans (Johann) Mueller.
An act for the relief of Joseph Henri Jacques Gaston Lareault.
An act for the relief of Joseph Nagy.
An act for the relief of Aime Arthur Roy.
An act for the relief of Sarah Juliet Montgomery Scott.
An	act	for the	relief	of	Mary Ethel Flood
Harding.
An act for the relief of Carrie Ruth Morbey Chenoy.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Sylvia Aston Sutton.
An act for the relief of Irene Toth Nagy.
An	act	for the	relief	of	Henryka Ziernicka
Bogdan.
An act for the relief of Mildred Ermine Bradshaw Moore.
An act for the relief of Shirley William Bales.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Marjorie Joy Hartley Tanner.
An act for the relief of Thomasine Elaine Mansfield Black.
An act for the relief of Patricia Mary Kearney Hollett.
An act for the relief of Margot Fairbanks Duff Pratt.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Rita Stevenson LaFerme.
An act for the relief of James Alexander Dougherty.
An act for the relief of Morris Fishman.
An act for the relief of Yvon Perras.
An act for the relief of Joyce Elizabeth Purves Jones.
An act for the relief of Morjorie Euretta Adams Mattinson.
An	act	for	the	relief of Myrtle Norma Epps
Stewart.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Alexandre
Hyppolit McLish.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Taschereau Pierre
Charles Joseph Rodier.
An act for the relief of Berniece Gertrude Doran.
An act for the relief of Florence Mildred Fine Crelinsten.
An act for the relief of Gerard Richer.
An act for the relief of Thomas John Rivet.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Dorina Perelroizen
Wallerstein, otherwise known as Dorina Perlraizen Wallerstein.
An act for the relief of Gabriele Laure Josephine Girard Steinbach.
An act for the relief of Reine Cesarine Berthe Laborgne Deyglun.
An act for the relief of Hanus Braun, otherwise known as John Browne.
An act for the relief of Hazel Loisette Robinson Darby.
An act for the relief of Pearle Elizabeth McLeod Martin.
An act for the relief of Susan Klamka Migicovsky.
An act for the relief of Olive Margaret Searle Pfeffer.	[DOT]
An act for the relief of Alfred Roger Holder.
An act for the relief of Joseph Willie Brais.
An act for the relief of Gladys Ola Taylor McLellan.
An act for the relief of Freda Smolar Brown.
An act for the relief of Marguerita Downie Couture.
An act for the relief of Howard Douglas Wardle.
An act for the relief of Rose Brownstien Lazarus.
An act for the relief of Rebecca Bowman LeFloch.
An act for the relief of John Stewart Hannah.
An act for the relief of Harold Speevak.
An act for the relief of Rita Rabinovitch Abrams.
An act for the relief of Marcel Roland Veilleux.
An act for the relief of Mary Gordon Wilson LeForest.
An act for the relief of Lionel Jobin.
An act for the relief of Mildred Hannah Earle.
An act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944.
An act to incorporate Merit Insurance Company.
An act to incorporate Canadian Disaster Relief Fund, Incorporated.
An act to incorporate Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited.
An act respecting the Liability of the Crown for Torts and Civil Salvage.
An act to amend The Excise Act, 1934.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act to amend The Indian Act.
An act to amend The Post Office Act.
An act to amend The Emergency Powers Act.
An act to establish the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act to amend The Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
An act to implement the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean.
An act to amend The Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
An act to amend The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act to amend The Fisheries Research Board Act.
An act respecting Food, Drugs, Cosmestics and Therapeutic Devices.
An act to amend The Canadian Citizenship Act.
An act to amend The Veterans Benefit Act, 1951.
An act to Authorize the Grant of Assistance to a Province for the Conservation of Water Resources.
An act to amend The Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
An act to provide Assistance for the Higher Education of Children of certain Deceased Members of the Armed Forces and of other Persons.
An act to provide for the Government of the Yukon Territory.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
An act respecting the Canadian Forces.
An act to amend the Radio Act, 1938.
An act relating to Trade Marks and Unfair Competition.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act respecting Co-operative Credit Associations.
An act to amend The National Housing Act, 1944.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1953, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to implement a Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery.
An act to amend The Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
An act to prevent discrimination in regard to employment and membership in trade unions by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion.
An act to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited.
An act to amend The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
An act to provide for the superannuation of persons employed in the public service of Canada.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1954.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Governor General, did thereupon say:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
It is anticipated that the session now concluding will be the final session of the twenty-first parliament.
During the life of this parliament the commonwealth and the world were saddened by the death of a great king.
Our young Queen is already assured of the affectionate loyalty and devotion of the Canadian people, and of our deep attachment to the crown. The representatives of our country will leave in a few days to manifest those sentiments in the coronation ceremonies. Coronation day will be the occasion of universal rejoicing in Canada and throughout the commonwealth. At the present session you have enacted legislation to confirm the change in the royal style and titles agreed upon by the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers held in London in December last.
Since the present parliament was elected four years ago we have witnessed many important changes in our own country and in the world.
For the first time, the crown is represented in Canada by one of the sovereign's Canadian subjects.
This is the first parliament in which there have been members from the new province of Newfoundland. Four years ago the work of the fathers of confederation was completed and all Canadians rejoice in the success of the union and the fine contribution the people of Newfoundland are making to the life of the nation.
One of the first achievements of this parliament was to vest the Supreme Court of Canada with jurisdiction as the final court of appeal for the Canadian nation.
This is the first parliament entrusted with the power to amend the constitution of Canada here in Canada in matters which are exclusively of federal concern and at the last session this power was exercised to provide for an alteration in the rules for the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons.
You have made provision for separate representation of the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories in parliament; for elected members in the Northwest Territories council and for increased elected representation in the Yukon council.
Special constitutional safeguards have been made to ensure the holding of federal general elections within the period prescribed by the British North America Act.
Three years ago, this parliament gave its approval to Canadian participation in the military intervention of the United Nations to resist communist aggression in Korea. Since that time Canadian forces have shared in the collective effort to halt aggression and restore peace to that unhappy land. Apart from the South Koreans themselves, our forces have formed the third largest contingent in the combined strength of the United Nations in Korea and they have fought with valour and distinction in conformity with

our finest traditions. All Canadians recognize the magnitude of the sacrifice of those who have fought for the sake of peace in the cause of the United Nations and all have shared the anxieties of their families.
The military objective of the United Nations action in Korea has been substantially achieved. Having stopped the aggression, the United Nations has been making every effort to bring about an honourable armistice, so that the fighting may come to an end. Although this problem has not yet been solved, we rejoice in the steps taken to bring about a return of sick and wounded prisoners and we hope that the renewal of the armistice negotiations at Panmunjom will be the prelude to that peace for which the whole world prays.
On the Korean question, as on other issues, we have at all times been prepared to consider any genuine proposals to this end, for our sole aim is peace. But we must be convinced by deeds as well as words that there is a desire for a permanent and durable peace before it will be prudent or safe to slacken our preparations to maintain the strength necessary to deter aggression.
We have looked to the United Nations not only as an instrument of collective security but also as a means for extending human welfare. Through its programs of technical assistance to underdeveloped countries, to which Canada has fully contributed, steps have been taken to increase world levels of production, to eradicate or reduce disease and illiteracy, and hunger over an ever widening area of the globe. Closely related to our participation in United Nations efforts in the field of technical, economic and social co-operation are the activities in which we have shared through participation in the Colombo plan, which has provided a valuable demonstration of practical co-operation within the modern commonwealth.
The North Atlantic treaty has been in force throughout the life of this parliament. The alliance of the Atlantic nations has proved its worth in lessening the risks of aggression in Europe by the build-up of an integrated force for the preservation of peace.
Our country has met promptly our obligations under the alliance. A formation from the Canadian army is now part of the integrated forces in Europe. The build-up of the air division of the Royal Canadian Air Force is nearing completion.	Canadian naval strength is steadily
increasing. We have made a substantial contribution through mutual aid to the armed strength of our European allies.
We have given attention, in the closest co-operation with the United States, to the direct defence needs of the North American continent and we are actively engaged in implementing joint plans to meet any attacks deemed possible on the scales presently envisaged by the military advisers of our two countries.
Other important steps toward world peace were taken during this period. The state of war with Germany was terminated by proclamation in 1951. Canada has since supported the association of the federal German republic, for the common defence, within the European defence community, and with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The treaty of peace with Japan was also signed in 1951, thus making possible the resumption of normal diplomatic relations with that country.
After the outbreak of hostilities in Korea my ministers reluctantly recommended a measure to vest in the governor in council for one year certain powers which might be necessary to meet any unforeseen emergency. This legislation expressly reserves to parliament the control of
Prorogation of Parliament expenditures and excludes any arbitrary power to arrest, detain, exclude or deport any person or to censor, control or suppress publications and writings, and contains provisions for review by parliament of the exercise of these emergency powers by the governor in council. Because hostilities have continued in Korea this emergency legislation has had to be renewed year by year.
The veterans charter has been kept under constant review and the appropriate statutes amended from time to time. Pension rates for disabled veterans, widows of veterans and their dependents have been increased substantially. War veterans allowances have also been increased. At the present session you approved a measure designed to provide greater educational opportunities for children whose fathers died as a result of war service.
Canada's total trade with other nations has reached unprecedented levels. The removal of foreign exchange control and the high level of the Canadian dollar have demonstrated the basic strength of our national economy.
Through active participation in multilateral trade negotiations and by every other available means my ministers have sought to make an effective contribution to the removal of obstacles to the free flow of world trade.
Productive investment has increased year by year. Inflation has been brought under control. The national debt has been reduced every year with a cumulative reduction in the dead weight of its carrying charges.
Production and national income have risen so substantially year by year that it has been possible to finance the vast increase in our defence effort and at the same time make substantial reduction in rates of taxation.
My ministers have been concerned to promote this national development along lines designed to provide a fair share of the national income to all the various sectors of the Canadian economy.
Agricultural production and income have kept at high levels, despite some inevitable adjustments. To help reduce the impact of price changes, effective use has been made of price support legislation. Floor prices and governmental action on a large scale were essential to prevent great hardship in all parts of Canada resulting from the United States embargo on imports of Canadian livestock and meat following the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the province of Saskatchewan last year.
At the present session you approved Canadian participation in a new international wheat agreement and extended the life of the Canadian wheat board.
Great progress has been made in the long-term program for federal assistance in the modernization of our fisheries. The international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean has been approved and you have approved the renewal of the halibut treaty. Provision has been made for the insurance of fishermen's boats and certain gear.
Throughout the life of this parliament, employment has remained at a high level. Coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act has been extended, benefits payable have been increased and supplementary benefits provided during winter months. At the present session you approved the payment of benefits to insured workers who while otherwise unemployed and entitled to benefit become incapacitated for work by reason of illness or injury.
Though parliamentary action was required to settle a dispute between the operators and employees of our railways in 1950, similar difficult situation* threatened during the past year and
5444	HOUSE OF
Prorogation of Parliament were averted by the moderation and good spirit of both parties. The whole period has witnessed an increasingly good relationship between labour and management in industry generally.
Provision has been made for the insertion in all federal government contracts of clauses prohibiting discrimination on the part of the contractor against any person in regard to employment because of that person's race, national origin, colour or religion. You have approved a bill during the present session to make similar provisions in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
The present parliament has completely revised the Indian Act providing inter alia for full voting privileges for Indians at their option. The Immigration Act has also been completely revised and substantial improvements have been made in the Canadian Citizenship Act. A large number of immigrants have come to Canada to make their homes and share in the development of our country.
From time to time you have made important amendments to the National Housing Act and there has been a notable expansion of house building under the manifold provisions of our national legislation.
A great advance in social security was made when this parliament enacted a measure to provide for the payment of pensions as a matter of right and without a means test to all Canadians with appropriate residential qualifications who have attained the age of seventy years; together with the complementary measures to share with the provinces ijn assistance to those in need between sixty-five and seventy years of age.
At the present session you have extended the national health program inaugurated in 1948 under which health and hospital facilities have been greatly expanded all over Canada. The new grants which you have provided for maternal and child health services, for medical rehabilitation and for the extension of radiological and laboratory services will bring added facilities for better health to people in all parts of Canada, will give new hope to the disabled and will assure greater health protection to the Canadian mother and child.
The penitentiaries commission has introduced important reforms in the administration of our penal institutions with gratifying and promising results.
This parliament enacted legislation to provide for the construction of the trans-Canada highway in co-operation with the provincial governments.
To assist in our national development you also authorized the Canadian National Railways to construct a branch line from Sherridon to Lynn Lake in the province of Manitoba and one between Terrace and Kitimat in the province of British Columbia; as well as providing for federal assistance to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to complete the line to Prince George. You approved a number of the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation including provision for the maintenance as a national charge of the link in northern Ontario between eastern and western Canada and the measure for the recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways.
You made provision for the construction of the Canso causeway which is now under way and for ferry services from North Sydney to Port aux Basques and the terminal facilities at that port, and a new ferry service between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine.
[Stage Direction]
You have also made financial provision for certain improvements to Vancouver harbour and for engineering studies of that harbour and other possible improvements to navigation on the Pacific coast.
You have authorized the creation of a corporation to be known as "The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority" for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining, either alone or in co-operation with the United States, a deep waterway between Montreal and lake Erie.
You also approved the agreement with the government of Ontario to make possible the development by Ontario, in co-operation with an appropriate agency in the United States, of hydroelectric power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river. The power project has been approved by the international joint commission and work on the seaway as well as on the power development can be started as soon as an agency is authorized in the United States to co-operate in the power development.
You approved the Niagara diversion treaty between Canada and the United States to provide for appropriate safeguards of the scenic beauty of this great waterfall and for the permanent diversion of additional water from the Niagara river for hydroelectric power development and the development is already under way.
You made provision for the development of the industrial and scientific uses of atomic energy through a new crown company known as Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited.
You have enacted legislation for federal cooperation with the provincial governments in the conservation of our forest and water resources.
To safeguard the existence of a number of important communities, you have also made provision for assistance required to maintain certain gold mines and certain coal mines in production.
You have made the necessary provision to implement the national television policy with the objective of making television available as widely as possible across the country through co-operation between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and private stations; and to ensure an adequate Canadian content in television programs.
You have also provided for the financing of sound broadcasting and television without licence fees for receiving sets.
You have approved a measure to define more clearly the functions of the national film board and simplify its administrative machinery.
You have approved the creation of a national library, a site for the building has been chosen, and plans are now being prepared.
You have revised the National Gallery Act and the board of trustees has been expanded. You have also made provision for the payment of grants to universities and equivalent institutions of higher learning recognized and approved by the provincial authorities.
You have placed the historic sites and monuments board on a statutory basis and given encouragement to its activities and made provision for a monument to a former Canadian prime minister, Sir Robert Borden, to be erected on parliament hill.
You have provided for a unified and systematic procedure for the publishing and tabling in parliament of the regulations and orders made by the governor in council, ministers of the crown or other agencies authorized to make regulations having the force of law.
You have strengthened the legislation to prevent combines and price fixing in restraint of trade.

A measure has been enacted to place the crown in substantially the same position as a private person with respect to liability for acts committed by its servants, for breach of duty arising out of ownership or occupation of property, and for salvage claims, and also to confer upon the provincial courts jurisdiction concurrent with that of the Exchequer Court of Canada to entertain certain classes of claims.
You have made provision for the renewal of taxation agreements with the provinces; and new agreements have been made with the governments of nine of the provinces.
You revised and greatly improved the legislation respecting the financial administration of the government of Canada, the audit of public accounts and the financial control of crown companies.
At the present session you enacted a measure to regulate co-operative credit societies incorporated by parliament for the purpose of operating in more than one province.
You have approved revisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act; the Food and Drugs Act; and the trade marks legislation.
Legislation respecting payment to rural mail carriers has been revised.
Amendments were also made to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the act to protect the coastal fisheries, the Fisheries Research Board Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Judges Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for making provision for all essential services including our national defence and our external obligations.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
As this parliament concludes its labours, I pray that Divine Providence may continue to bless this nation and our beloved Queen and to help us secure a lasting peace.
This concluded the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
408.	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, $700,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
541. To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection one of section 34 of the National Housing Act, 1944, in respect of housing projects for veterans, and* housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, for sale or rental, $3,300,000.
General-
727.	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 during the fiscal year 1952-53 in respect of:
Supply
(a)	Preliminary expenses incurred under enabling agreements with provincial governments, $5,840.
(b)	Loss on housing project operation during the fiscal year 1952-53, $5,636-$11,476.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
763. 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 1952-53, $9,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
162.	Departmental administration, $391,601.
163.	Remission service, $113,176.
164.	Administration of justice-miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $21,200.
Supreme Court of Canada-
165.	Administration, $180,137.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
166.	Administration, $100,925.
Yukon Territorial Court-[DOT]
167.	Administration, $13,675.
168.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $6,000.
Other courts-
169.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office, $20,000.
Combines Investigation Act-
170.	Restrictive trade practices commission, $82,150.
171.	Office for investigation and research, $279,059.
172.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $37,525.
173.	Northwest Territories-administration of justice, $62,460.
174.	Yukon Territory-administration of justice, $59,830.
General-
175.	To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of Canada, $104,395.
B-Penitentiaries-
176.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $35,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $346,452.
177.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of inmates; compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $8,218,403.
178.	Construction, improvement and new equipment, including provision for the establishment and construction of a new institution in the province of Quebec for the confinement and reformation of federal prisoners, $1,315,724.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
409.	General administration, $376,144.
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally and other incidental expenses-
410.	Operation and maintenance, $26,398,424.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
411.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $720,000, $5,119,676.
Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
412.	Operation and maintenance, $1,228,532.
413. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $294,500.
Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
414.	Operation and maintenance, $307,418.
415. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $59,300.
416.	Grant to the Chief Constables' Association of Canada, $500.
Pensions and other benefits-
417.	Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $6,863
418.	Pension to Basile Burke Currie, $685.
Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
543. 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 operation of canteens in federal penitentiaries and to provide authority, notwithstanding subsection 5 of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, for the payment of such proportion of profits on such operations as the treasury board may allocate to the prisoners' welfare fund; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $40,000.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
547. To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of acquiring and managing material to be used in the manufacture of uniforms, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $250,000.
A-Department-
Yukon Territorial Court-
668. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $25,000.
Yukon Territory-
669. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $25,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
670.	Construction, improvements and new equipment, including provision for the establishment and construction of a new institution in the province of Quebec for the confinement and reformation of federal prisoners-further amount required, $87,445.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
728.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $200,000.
729.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $165,750.
Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
730.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $51,453.
731.	Grants to the Royal North West Mounted Police Veterans' Association, $300.
Pensions and other benefits-
732.	Government's contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account, $694,712.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
294.	General administration, $2,177,924.
295.	Inspection, investigation and audit services, $3,031,861.
Ports, outports and preventive stations-
296.	Operation and maintenance, $20,266,031.
297.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,136,400.
298.	Customs excise seizure expenses and adjustments, $206,000.
Taxation division-
299.	General administration, $2,491,778.
300.	District offices, $20,935,491.
Income tax appeal board-
301.	Administration expenses, $71,220.
Customs and excise divisions-
686. General	administration-further	amount
required, $65,270.
687.	Inspection, investigation and audit services -further amount required, $40,270.
Ports, outports and preventive stations-
688.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $235,580.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
International shortwave broadcasting service-
54.	Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from rental of facilities in Radio Canada building to an amount of $160,000 and to re-expend it for the purposes of the international service, $1,982,050.
55.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including supervision, $199,500.
540. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine and to be applied in payment of expenditures to cover capital costs of television installations and to support the development of the service. Such loans, with interest, shall be a charge on the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation next after the charge imposed under the provisions of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, $4,750,000.
International shortwave broadcasting service-
646.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $45,150.
647.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including supervision-further amount required, $157,668.

Supply

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
179.	Departmental administration, $613,375.
180.	To provide for expenses of the eonomics and research branch, $478,200.
181.	Annuities Act-administration, $916,085.
182.	Fair wages, conciliation, industrial relations, industrial disputes investigations, including the administration of legislation relating thereto, and for activities re promotion of co-operation in industry between labour and management, $446,627.
183.	Canada labour relations board, $5,375.
184.	International labour conferences, $61,220.
185.	Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $136,183.
186.	To provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements that may be entered into by the Minister of Labour with the provinces and approved by the governor in council, $345,000.
187.	To provide for investigations and inspection work in relation to working conditions in industries where the federal government has exclusive responsibility, $10,000.
188.	To provide for expenses of a women's bureau, $21,560.
Vocational training co-ordination-
189.	Administration, $59,062.
To provide for carrying out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942, and agreements made thereunder; to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council for the training of persons to fit them for defence industries, the training of members of Her Majesty's forces and other persons to fit them for skilled armed services occupations and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years-
190.	Training payments to the provinces, $4,205,800.
191.	Payments to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational schools, buildings and equipment, $400,000.
Government employees compensation-
192.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $59,276.
Terminable services-
193.	To provide for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council, $66,780.
194.	To provide for payment to the national film board for educational films for exhibition, $24,000.
195.	To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need, including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada; administrative expenses connected therewith and to provide for expenditures under agreements with the provinces authorized by the governor in council, $993,832.
196.	To provide for payments to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, and administrative expenses connected therewith, $195,333.
B-Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
197.	Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $25,895,106.
198.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, $32,000,000.
199.	To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $75,000.
Government employees compensation-
671.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act-further amount required. $8,500.
Terminable services-
672.	To publicize amendments to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, $5,000.

[Stage Direction]
61.	Field and inspectional service, Canada-operation and maintenance including $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $5,204,217.
62.	Field and inspectional service, abroad-operation and maintenance, $1,905,025.
63.	To provide subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants, including care en route and while waiting employment, $500,000.
Indian affairs branch-
64.	Branch administration, $369,165.
Indian agencies-
65.	Operation and maintenance, $2,072,211.
66.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $626,105.
Reserves and trusts-
67.	Operation and maintenance, $145,064.
68.	Acquisition of land, $75,000.
Welfare of Indians-
69.	Operation and maintenance, $1,894,004.
70.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,000,163.
71.	Grants to agricultural exhibitions and Indian fairs, $7,350.
72.	Fur conservation-operation and maintenance, $320,300.
Education-
73.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,635,102.
74.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $3,201,086.
75.	Grant to provide additional services to Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
B-National gallery of Canada-
76.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $215,345.
77.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of arts, in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $130,000.
Supply
[Stage Direction]
Citizenship-
648.	Citizenship branch-further amount required, $225,000.
Immigration branch-
649.	To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants, including care en route and while awaiting employment-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Indian affairs branch-
Indian agencies-
650. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $43,000.
Reserves and trusts-
651.	Acquisition of land-further amount required, $70,000.
Education-
652. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $149,000.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
673.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament,
1952-53, to members of the Senate 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, $12,000.
House of Commons-
674.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained1 in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament, 1952-53, 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 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, $6,000.
Library of parliament-
675. General	administration-further	amount
required, $98,000.

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
677. To authorize the governor in council to regard the election to count prior service for the purposes of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, made by the public curator of the province of Quebec on behalf of Georges Rene Boivin, a contributor, as a valid election pursuant to section 5 of that act, $1.