1953-12-10

Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. On Saturday, December 5, the Toronto Globe and Mail referred to me as follows in its leading editorial:
The Liberals prefer the gag and the blindfold. Some of them, particularly those from western ridings, must have agreed with the Social Credit motion; for example, Mr. Elmore Philpott, Liberal member for Vancouver South, who has long demanded that Canada accept sterling . . . They stayed in line. Such docility damages parliament. It weakens public interest in, and respect for, parliament. It will do the greatest harm, in the long run, to the Liberal party itself.
In the above quotation, Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail was chiding western Liberals in general and myself in particular for not having voted for a Social Credit subamendment. But in its very next issue, on Monday, December 7, the Globe and Mail said:
The acceptance of sterling funds in payment for United Kingdom . . . imports from Canada ... is a question of vital importance ... It is unfortunate that opposition amendments were so ineptly phrased and argued that the government was given complete justification for sidetracking the whole issue for the time being. The Social Credit subamendment would have committed Canada to bearing the entire burden of sterling convertibility; it asked nothing less than that this country should accept sterling from any buyer abroad who tendered it as payment for any purchases from us . . . Economic ignorance and a deficient understanding of the functions of an opposition combined to produce this masterpiece of parliamentary incompetence. It had the effect of-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall have to ask the member to state his question of privilege.


Elmore Philpott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reasons I voted against the subamendment are precisely those given in the Globe and Mail itself only two days after it castigated me for not having voted for what two days later it called "this masterpiece of parliamentary incompetence". It is true, Mr. Speaker, that I have long been and still am a believer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has stated his question of privilege. He must not make a speech.


Elmore Philpott: Thank you, sir. Just six more lines.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Elmore Philpott: Naturally I am flattered by the Globe and Mail's eagerness to have me make a speech in parliament. I think it was the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who advised me that a newcomer should be seen more and heard less. As an old-time Globe editor myself, when it was a straight Liberal paper, I could make allowances for any editor, because I know there are some Monday mornings when he cannot remember what he wrote the preceding Saturday.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made a statement in this house on November 25 last concerning the request of the United States government to make Mr. Igor Gouzenko available for questioning.
At that time Mr. Pearson tabled the exchange of notes which had taken place between the state department and the Canadian embassy in Washington on this subject. Since my colleague's statement, the United States government have accepted the terms set forth in the Canadian embassy's note of November 25 to the state department, namely that any such meeting with Mr. Gouzenko should take place under Canadian auspices and would be presided over by a Canadian who would rule on procedures, and that no part of the evidence or information secured from the meeting, however recorded, would be made public without the approval of the Canadian government.
The Secretary of State of the United States has informed the Canadian government that he has designated Senator Jenner and Mr. Robert Morris as representatives of the United States government to attend such a meeting.

External Affairs
Subsequent to receiving the agreement of the United States government to our proposals, I communicated by letter with Mr. Gouzenko, who has now replied that he is prepared to meet the representatives of the United States government on the terms already agreed between the United States and Canadian governments.
In view of the confidential nature of the meeting, I am sure the house will agree that it would be undesirable to say anything further on this matter at the present time.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY  REPORTED DIFFER- ENCES BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES
Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would care to comment on a press report to the effect that differences of opinion had developed between Canadian and American representatives in the international joint commission in relation to the St. Lawrence seaway project.
So far as the government is able to ascertain, no differences of opinion between Canadian and American representatives on the international joint commission have developed in this matter. I assume the hon. member refers to the St. Lawrence power project since the waterway aspect is not under consideration by the commission.


POST OFFICE ACT
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 76, to amend the Post Office Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prevent the distribution through the royal mail of subversive propaganda from the communist party of Canada and also the Labour-Progressive party of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


TELEGRAPHS ACT
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 30 (from the Senate), to amend the Telegraphs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
3.	Hew many are in receipt of non-contributory service pensions, (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $20.00 to $39.90 per month; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month;
(g)	$80.00 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90.00 to $99.99
per month; (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month; (k)	$150 or over
per month?
4.	How many are in receipt of pensions in part basic and in part contributory, (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month;
(h)	$90.00 to $99.99 per month; (i)	$100.00 to
$124.99 per month; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150 or over per month?




Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has any provision yet been made for any increase in the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
2.	Has any reconsideration been given by the government at any time since the matter was last discussed in the House of Commons on May 12, 1953, to increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, discussed with the government the possibility of the amount of the said basic pension being increased? If so, are there any records of such discussions?
4.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to approve of the Canadian National Railways increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what was the government's answer?
5.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to take the responsibility for providing an increase in the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what reply has the government made to any such request?
6.	If no decision has yet been taken on this matter by the government, is the matter now under consideration?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to these two questions, I am informed by the Canadian National Railways that they are practically the same as those asked by the hon. gentleman last year, and that therefore the answers would have to be the same; but if my hon. friend were to ask them next year, because of the returns made by the Canadian National Railways and the figures that are compiled at the end of the year, it will be possible to give him

a different answer at that time. Therefore my suggestion to him would be that he drop them or allow them to stand.


Mr. Knowles:: May I say that I can see the force of what the minister says with respect to the first question. May I point out, however, that in the second question I asked for certain information concerning developments subsequent to May 12, 1953. Perhaps the two questions might be allowed to stand today and the minister and I can discuss them before they come up next time.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



PEMBROKE-ALLUMETTE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr. Forgie:: 1.	Has the federal government or any minister or department thereof received any communication, since November 3, 1953, from the premier or the government of the province of Quebec, with regard to the construction of the Pembroke-Allurnette Island bridge?
2.	If so, of what nature and on what date or dates?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On December 5, 1953, the premier replied to a letter of November 18, 1953, from the Minister of Public Works. The object of the several communications is to find a basis suitable to the federal, Ontario, and Quebec governments for participating in the construction of the bridge in question.



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B.C.- REPEATER STATIONS

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Are the repeater stations on the northern British Columbia and Yukon lines of the government telegraph and telephone system included in the sale of the said system to the British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian National Telegraph Company?
2.	If so, to which company will they be sold?
3.	By whom will they be operated?
4.	How many such stations are there, where are they located, and when were they built, respectively?
5.	What was the total cost of construction?



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B.C.   EQUIPMENT AND COST

Mr. Fulton:: In connection with the government telegraph and telephone system in British Columbia and the Yukon:
1.	How many telephones are there in use on the whole system?
2.	How many exchanges, with how many switchboards respectively, and where is each located?
3.	How many poles?
4.	How many miles of wire?
5.	How many miles of copper wire?
Questions
6.	What is the net cost (installed) of the above totals of telephones, exchange switchboards, poles (with insulators and pole hardware) and wire respectively?



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B.C.- SERVICE, RATES, ETC.

Edmund Davie Fulton: In connection with the projected sale of the government telegraph and telephone service system in British Columbia and the Yukon to the British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian National Telegraph Company respectively:
1.	What assurances have been given or are being required from the British Columbia Telephone Company regarding the continuation of telephone service on branch lines?
2.	What, if anything, is being written into the agreement of sale concerning the principles by which the purchasers will be bound with respect to, or the conditions under which they will be entitled to demand, an increase in rates?
3.	What arrangements have been made or are contemplated to ensure that the transfer is made with the minimum disadvantage to present employees of the government system relative to continuation in employment in their present positions or in positions of similar status with the new owners, and with respect to their superannuation rights?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to these three questions a number of difficulties arise. In answering these questions I should like to bring those difficulties to the attention of my hon. friend and the house.
With reference to the date of construction of the repeater stations, we have only the approximate dates, and we will have to inquire from the Department of National Defence, under whose direction these buildings were constructed during world war II, the exact dates, which will, of course, vary, at each of the seven locations on the northern British Columbia lines.
With regard to the number of telephones, this changes from day to day, and will require information from Vancouver.
With regard to the number of poles, to be accurately answered to the last pole, it will require a physical check of no fewer than
3,000	miles of pole line, and that would take weeks to accomplish.
With reference to the net oost of the totals of telephone exchange switchboards, poles and wire, apparently this question refers only to the telephone side of things. It is practically impossible to divide telephone and telegraph costs with strict accuracy as in much of the outside plant, the telephone and telegraph wires are erected on the same poles. To give the telephone costs only would require us to go back year by year and extract telephone costs from construction and in some cases maintenance figures. This would require weeks to complete. We would much prefer

Questions
to give the figure arrived at in the joint survey in 1952; that is the replacement value of the plant depreciated as to June 1, 1952.
With reference to the conditions of sale as outlined in the last question of my hon. friend as has already been stated in the house details were being worked out and it would be impossible at this time to give the answers, though I would be glad to answer that question after the details have been worked out.
Therefore in order to answer the first two questions it would require a tremendous clerical staff, and it would cost a considerable amount of money. I tried to reach my hon. friend to acquaint him of this before the house met, but unfortunately I was unable to reach him. In the circumstances I wonder whether he would give consideration to withdrawing the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: With reference to the comment made by the minister, I can only say that while of course I have to accept what he says, I find it difficult to believe that with reference to the sale of the system, which has been under way for two years, they have not made a survey and that they could not produce information of the type I am asking for.
With reference to the matters contained in the last question, we have been trying for the same two years to get information as to what provision will be made to protect the men, to assure continuation of the service, and so on.
I am sorry the minister was not able to reach me this morning, and in the circumstances, since I think it is important to get this information I would suggest that the questions stand and perhaps he and I could have some further talk about them before they come up again.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



TJN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE-TRAINING IN CANADA

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many persons are being trained in Canada under the United Nations technical assistance program?
2.	What part of the training cost is being paid by (a) Canada: (b) any other nations?


Mr. Pinard:: 1.	At the present time 27 persons are undergoing training in Canada under United Nations technical assistance programs.
2.	(a) and (b)-The cost of training persons sent to Canada under United Nations technical assistance programs is paid by the United Nations agency concerned. Funds for the United Nations expanded program of technical assistance are contributed by governments on a voluntary basis. The regular
[Mr. Chevrier.l
technical assistance programs of the United Nations and the specialized agencies are financed from their ordinary budgets. Canada and most of the other members of the United Nations contribute funds for technical assistance activities, but it is not possible to say what proportion of each national contribution is spent on training in Canada.



COLOMBO PLAN


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many persons are being trained in Canada under the Colombo plan?
2.	What part of the training cost is being paid for by (a) Canada: (b) any other nations?


Mr. Pinard:: 1.	At the present time 50 persons are being trained in Canada under the Colombo plan.
2.	(a) and (b)-The whole of the cost of training is paid by Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What quantities of canned pork, beef, chilled beef and meat in any other form, were held by the agricultural products board or any other department of government on November 1, 1953?
2.	What quantities of the above products were held one year ago?
3.	What was the cost price of each product and what has been the selling price?


FEDERAL ACCOMMODATION, CHARLOTTETOWN- RENTS PAID
Mr. MacLean:: 1.	What is the total of all rents paid by the federal government for accommodation in the city of Charlottetown from March 31, 1951 until March 31, 1953?
2.	To what landlords were these rents paid?
3.	What was the amount paid to each?



FEDERAL ACCOMMODATION, FORT WILLIAM   RENTS PAID

Mr. Mclvor:: What yearly rental is paid by the federal government for buildings in Fort William occupied by the board of grain commissioners, the Royal Canadian Air Force or any other government department or agency?



TUBERCULOSIS-INDIANS AND ESKIMOS

Mr. Applewhaiie:: 1.	What is the present incidence of tuberculosis among Indians and Eskimos?
2.	What is the present death rate from tuberculosis among Indians and Eskimos?
3.	How does this incidence and death rate compare with incidence and death rate in 1933 and 1943, respectively?
4.	What has been the amount expended by the federal government in prevention and control of tuberculosis among Indians and Eskimos, during the past five years?

Inquiries of the Ministry
NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS	WHEAT



AMOUNT PAID TO COMMISSION


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec to increase the amount that may be paid to the commission from $100,000 to $125,000 during each of the four years commencing April 1, 1954.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Postmaster General) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to to increase the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada from the 1st day of April, 1954, (a) on each letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted, from three cents to four cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and from one cent to two cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce, and (b) on each letter posted within one postal area for delivery in another postal area from four cents to five cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and from two cents to the commission from $100,000 to $125,000 during each of the four years commencing April 1, 1954.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could the minister inform the house what make are the
26,000	-30 calibre rifles reported in the press yesterday as having been sent by Canada to the French army? Could he also tell us when and from whom these rifles were acquired and the reason for their being disposed of?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I should like to take the question as a notice, as I have no details of that matter here.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION IN VIEW OF UNITED STATES SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Could the Prime Minister state what action Canada will take as a result of the very disturbing announcement that the United States government is to subsidize the sale of their wheat in the export market?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am not in position to make a statement at this time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: In view of the great interest shown in this matter by prospective home owners and the building industry generally, could the Minister of Public Works give the house any information as to when we may expect the new housing legislation?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I expect that a resolution will be placed on the order paper within the next day or two and that we will have an opportunity to debate it early next week. It is my hope that the bill may be distributed before the Christmas recess.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement to the Canadian Congress of Labour at noon today that in his view before sickness benefits could be included in the Unemployment Insurance Act there would have to be an amendment to the constitution, will the Prime Minister say whether he has taken, or will take, any steps to get the ball rolling toward that end?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know if my hon. friend was present, but I did not state that that was my opinion. I stated that that was the opinion we had got from the Department of Justice. There has been no attempt to start the ball rolling, to use my hon. friend's language, in order to have another amendment to the constitution in that respect.
768	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE LIQUIDATION OF DEEP SEA MERCHANT FLEET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question based on a Canadian Press dispatch in this morning's Montreal Gazette. Is the government considering authorizing the liquidation of the Canadian deep sea merchant fleet?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of requests that have come to the maritime commission relative to the matter the hon. member has raised. One has to do with the transfer of a number of ships to United Kingdom registry. Another request has to do with transfers under the old plan of 1949. Then there is a letter to the minister from the ship owners association requesting that the restrictions be lifted. All these matters are under consideration.



REQUEST OF MANITOBA FARMERS' UNION FOR CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has received a telegram from the convention of the Manitoba farmers' union urging his support for cash advances on farm-stored grain and, if so, has he already recommended such action to the government?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have received such a telegram and have replied to it.



AVAILABILITY OF RUST-RESISTANT WHEAT C.T. 186

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture if he is in position to answer the many inquiries that have been made as to the availability of the important new rust-resistant wheat, C.T. 186; and can he say what quantity of seed each producer may receive and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Mr. Roberi McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given me notice of this question, and I should like to make a statement today. C.T. 186 wheat has


now been licensed under the name "Selkirk". On the basis of milling and baking tests the board of grain commissioners has recognized this wheat as equal to Marquis wheat in quality and it will therefore be eligible for the top grades.
The Department of Agriculture has approximately 130,000 bushels of Selkirk wheat available for sale. The price will be $4.50 to $5.00 per bushel depending on the grade and eligibility for registration. Farmers wishing to obtain some of this seed should write to A. B. Masson, laboratory of cereal breeding, 1000 Dominion Square building, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
It is intended that sales of this seed will be made only to farmers living east of the third meridian in Saskatchewan and in the province of Manitoba.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 6, respecting the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 6-Further duties.
Mr. Pearkes:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister certain points having to do with the necessity of co-ordinating some of the services in the Yukon. I refer particularly to the necessity of co-ordinating customs and immigration services, not only as they concern the Department of National Revenue but also similar departments of the United States.
I speak with some personal knowledge of this matter because many years ago when I was a constable of the Royal North-West Mounted Police I was stationed on the boundary between Alaska and the Yukon Territory. One of my duties in those days was to assist in the enforcement of the customs and immigration regulations.
In those days a large number of men mushed over the trail from Skagway to Whitehorse. Occasionally some would endeavour to circumvent the customs and immigration station on the White Pass summit, and these men would have to be brought back to the customs office.
It is not my intention to speak today about those who may endeavour to avoid customs regulations, but rather to point out the difficulties which exist for those who would comply with them and at the same time carry on their ordinary work of prospecting in that difficult country. In recent years, in

fact in recent months there has been a great increase in prospecting activity, particularly along the border between southwest Alaska and the Yukon.
The present regulations impose a hardship upon the prospector and are likely to limit his endeavours. Obviously payloads and ore seams are not governed by international boundaries, and in the course of his operations a prospector frequently finds it necessary to cross from the Yukon Territory into Alaska, perhaps going back and forth two, three or four times during the season. When customs posts are far apart and the terrain is exceedingly difficult it is hard, if not almost impossible, to arrange a clearance each time a prospector may wish to cross the border.
I refer to the customs post at White Pass summit, which existed a number of years ago. That has since been withdrawn and is now located at Carcross which is some 50 or 60 miles further from the border, thus making it a little more difficult for these prospectors who may be working in the area which you might roughly describe as from the summit of White Pass, Log Cabin, lake Bennett, and swinging north to the Haines cutoff.
There is a big area there in which prospectors are active. Any time they wish to cross the border they have to report to the customs office at Carcross. In a similar way, proceeding north and westward in the Kootenay areas there is an immense area in which prospecting has been going on for a number of years and these prospectors cannot cross the border. I believe the nearest customs subpost is at Snag creek, which is a subpost for the customs post at White Pass summit, which in turn is some 200 miles from the border.
I would ask the minister to consult with his colleague the Minister of National Revenue, whom I am pleased to see is here today, as to whether it might be possible to issue some blanket permit which would cover a season and would enable prospectors to cross back and forth between the territory of Alaska and the Yukon, and allow those who are operating on the border to be supplied during a limited period of time. I know that would leave itself open to some objections, but at the same time it would be a great convenience to those men who carry out important development work in that area.
There is one other point connected with the co-ordination of these services, and that is the difficulty which is experienced by travellers entering the Yukon by the Alaska highway from north and west. The nearest post for immigration and customs, I understand, is at Snag creek, which is about 100 miles from 83276-49
Northern Affairs and National Resources the border. At a joint meeting of the northwest development committee of the joint Canada and United States chamber of commerce held in Washington last April a resolution was approved, I believe for the second or third year in succession, urging that either joint or adjacent immigration and customs offices be established at or much closer to the border than the offices which are now in existence.
I would urge the minister to consider, in consultation with his colleagues, whether something can be done to assist the development of this great territory by enabling prospectors to move more freely across the international border, and also to establish a more convenient port of entry on the Alaska highway.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Minister may formulate plans.
Mr. Macdonnell:: I would like to ask a question on section 7. In a way it is a question on wording, but I think there may be a point of substance. Section 5 deals with the duties, powers and functions of the new department, and explains that it covers all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction not by law assigned to any other department, etc., and makes it quite clear what jurisdiction the department holds. I have no question relating to that. But section 7 says this:
The minister may formulate plans for the conservation and development of the resources of Canada . . .
That is all; not all the natural resources set out in section 5. And section 7 continues:
. . . and for research with respect thereto . . .
And so on. My question is this. Let us assume that the resources of navigable waters are under consideration which, I understand, would come under the Department of Transport. This, therefore, says the new department is to have full responsibility for formulating plans for the conservation and development of the resources of Canada without limitation. I wonder if that was really intended. If I construe the meaning correctly it is extraordinarily broad, and I would ask the minister if that is clearly what is intended.


Jean Lesage: The minister may formulate plans, but if my hon. friend will keep on reading the section he will see that it continues:
-with the authority of the governor in council and in co-operation with other departments, branches and agencies of the government of Canada, provide for carrying out such plans.
770	HOUSE OF
Northern Affairs and National Resources
Of course the minister and his officials may initiate plans, but as to providing for the carrying out of these plans that must be with the authority of the governor in council and with the co-operation of other departments of the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should have made it clear that I appreciated that point, but I still think there is a question here. I quite realize the minister is limited by the words he quoted in relation to section 7, but I still suggest that the responsibility for initiating plans is very important indeed and I question whether it was intended that the new department could relieve all other departments of the initiative in formulating plans for the conservation and development of the matters primarily under their control. That seems to me to be what this section says.
It is quite true that they could not be carried to completion without consultation with other people; nevertheless if we assume there is something which it is considered ought to be originated in the Department of Transport, and if we assume that at a certain time there is criticism raised because it was not done, it seems to me the Department of Transport can say, "We had no duty except to consider plans brought to us by the new department".


Jean Lesage: I am sorry but that is not the way I read the section. "The minister may formulate plans for the conservation and development of the resources of Canada." That does not mean other ministers cannot do that as well.


Mr. Adamson:: Would it not clarify the issue if, after "resources of Canada", the words "as designated through section 5 of the act" were added?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe 1 can accept this amendment, because that would be limiting the initiating of plans in the department to the fields which are mentioned in section 5, while as a matter of fact, de facto, when initiating plans for the development or conservation of resources it is possible and perhaps unavoidable that those who are making the plans will touch on fields other than those covered by section 5.
The hon. member for Greenwood just gave an example. It might very well be that in the department some plans will be initiated for the conservation of water resources, and account will have to be taken of the navigation possibilities if they are navigable waters. Where these plans are initiated in the department, and cover matters affecting navigable waters, they could not be carried


out except after consultation with the Department of Public Works. But nothing prevents the Department of Public Works itself or the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) from initiating plans for navigable waters which at a certain moment will touch also on conservation problems. Then the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources will be consulted. It seems quite clear to my mind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I appreciate the force of what the minister has said with regard to the word "may". I think there is a real point there. Perhaps that could be answered in this way. Does the minister consider that this wording in no way removes any of the onus from any of the present departments to formulate plans for the conservation and development of resources which are primarily under their control? He does not think this wording will relieve them of any of the responsibility which they now have?


Jean Lesage: I am convinced of that.


Howard Charles Green: There is one change in section 7 as compared with section 7 of the Department of Resources and Development Act, in that the words "plans for public works and improvements" have been deleted. Can the minister tell us the significance of that change?


Jean Lesage: This change was made under the act which allows the transfer of duties from one department to another by order in council. The changes were made by order in council when the present Minister of Public Works was appointed to his post and I took his place in the Department of Resources and Development. It was then decided under this order in council that housing, public works and improvements and the trans-Canada highway would come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. It was also decided at the time that the national film board would be the responsibility of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This was explained the other day by the Prime Minister when he said that he wanted to relieve the new minister of as many outside duties as possible so he could give his main attention to the northland.


Howard Charles Green: In this explanation the other day I think the Prime Minister dealt with responsibility for the trans-Canada highway and housing, but not for public works, as I remember it. What I should like to know from the minister is whether this new plan of taking away from his department the power to construct public works is a general government policy which will apply to all departments, or does that change apply only in so far as his own department is concerned?

Northern Affairs and National Resources


Jean Lesage: In this case it does apply only to this department, but I believe the Minister of Public Works himself would be in a better position to announce government policy. I believe the Minister of Finance can announce government policy in that connection. It was formulated before I was a member of the cabinet.


Mr. Abbott:: As my hon. friend is aware, the general policy under the Public Works Act is that the Minister of Public Works and the Department of Public Works are responsible for constructing and operating government buildings. There are some exceptions. For instance, in the Department of Transport construction contracts are let directly by that department. But the general rule is that the Department of Public Works has that responsibility. The trend has been continually toward taking that particular responsibility from other departments who may be handling these matters and placing it in the Department of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any change in government policy recently in this regard?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Howard Charles Green: I ask that question for this reason. When the Senate finance committee brought in its report on June 23, 1952, it recommended strongly that an end should be put to this business of many of the departments setting up their own little public works branches rather than giving the work to the Department of Public Works. The recommendation read in this way:
The growing practice for other departments of government to bypass public works department and build up little public works branches of their own should cease, and all such work placed in charge of the public works department, where the law intended it should be.
The new minister tells the committee that, so far as he is concerned, he believes this change which is made in the bill changing the name of his department applies only to that department, and that there is no change in general government policy. What I want to know is whether the government is now following the suggestion laid down by the Senate committee; and if so, what other steps are being taken to bring about that change?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That recommendation of the Senate committee certainly has the wholehearted support of the Minister of Finance. In this case this new act will now eliminate the reference to the responsibility of the minister of that department for housing and transfer it to the Department of Public Works. Certain other cases are now under consideration. As my hon. friend appreciates, there is a new Minister of Public Works and 83276-49J
a new deputy minister of public works. At the moment the feeling is that the new minister should have a little more time in which to familiarize himself with the operation of his department before any major transfers are made. I can assure my hon. friend that the government is anxious to accomplish what the Senate committee had in mind and what we have been working toward.


Howard Charles Green: It is the intention then to get these other departments out of the public works business?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes.


The Chairman:: Order. I do not think I should permit any continuation of this discussion. The minister has answered the hon. member's question with regard to clause 7. I do not think I should allow general discussion of other policy.


Howard Charles Green: I am through, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Nicholson:: Can the minister give the committee some indication as to the amount of funds which are to be available? Under subsection 2 the minister may co-operate with the provinces and with municipalities in carrying out any conservation or development plans under subsection 1. I had a telegram from the Flin Flon chamber of commerce this morning which pointed out important developments in the Flin Flon area. The minister is to meet the minister of highways of Saskatchewan on Tuesday, I understand. I wonder whether the minister or the Minister of Finance can indicate what the situation will be when the new department is set up, or as to how generous the treasury is going to be in making funds available for carrying out the purpose of a section like subsection 2?


Jean Lesage: I do not believe it is the policy of any department or of the government to give any figures as to the estimates before the estimates are tabled in the house. I will certainly be delighted to have a talk with the Saskatchewan minister of highways and transportation, Mr. Douglas, on Tuesday next. We will look into every angle of any problem that he wants to submit for my consideration. He certainly will be well received.


Howard Charles Green: In this section there is provision for the department to carry on research. That provision seems to conflict with the national research council. Can the minister tell us what type of research is now being carried on by his department and what kind is to be carried on in the future?


Jean Lesage: Forestry research and wood utilization research. We also provide some grants for the pulp and paper research institute in Montreal. We have forest products
772	HOUSE OF
Northern Affairs and National Resources laboratories in Ottawa and Vancouver. We have five field forest research stations across Canada. I can speak of them only from memory. There is one at Petawawa and one at Valcartier, as well as three others. That is the kind of research we carry on. We are also working very closely with the national research council and the defence research board on Arctic research.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Crown lands.
Agar Rodney Adamson: This section deals with
crown lands and their development. Most of the crown lands that the minister will be administering-


Jean Lesage: Not development; management.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister will be managing them because they are crown lands. Will he be responsible for crown lands in the Yukon?


Jean Lesage: Yes. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories crown lands are a federal responsibility.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Going on from there, my point is simply that in many cases crown lands that are heavily timbered form the catch basin, watershed or reservoir of the potential hydroelectric development. Before the timber is disposed of in any way to anybody I hope the greatest of care will be taken to see that the timber in the catch basin or reservoir area is not cut to such an extent as to bring about erosion of the peaks of the coast range. I mention that because precipitation along the coast range is among the highest anywhere in the world. It is caused by the Japan current; and if the forest cover is removed the possibilities of the hydroelectric development may be destroyed because of erosion of the land once such cover has been removed.
I mention this because I know it has happened in other parts of the world. I have seen a development where it did happen, and I hope that no disposal of timber on such crown lands will be made until there has been a complete study as to the effect of such disposal on the erosion of the reservoir area from the point 6f view of hydroelectric development.


Mr. Herridge:: There is a small area of forest in my constituency which is held for the crown by the federal government. I think it was left to the government by an old English gentleman who retired to England and gave the federal government the land as an expression of his appreciation for having had the opportunity to live in Kootenay West for a good many years of his life. What


does the department do with a tract of land like that? Although it has been in the possession of the department for many years, nothing has happened.


Jean Lesage: It is very difficult to deal with a specific case on a general bill such as is now before us. If the hon. member wants to give me the lot number and all the details I will certainly be delighted to look into the matter and provide him with all the information he desires.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now, by leave.


Jean Lesage: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.


Jean Lesage: that the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the discussion in committee yesterday afternoon there was a bit of noise in the chamber and we in this group could not tell whether or not clause 5 had been passed. I wanted to say a word with respect to subsection (b), but I did not have the opportunity for the reason I have explained. Therefore that must be the basis of my excuse for delaying the house for a moment now.
I wish to refer to the human resources of the northern country, and particularly the Eskimos. There have been many black spots in the dealings of the white man with the native people indigenous to new territory, particularly in the matter of the more valuable natural resources. I think I should relate that to what I am going to say about the Eskimo. In our own country of course the history of the fur traders and the methods by which they exploited the native population are known to every school child, particularly with regard to giving the natives a purely nominal price for their products and trading to them little things that were more ornamental than useful. I might say that cheap whisky was a favourite item.
However, probably the greatest sin we have perpetrated on the native peoples has been, with the best intentions in the world to help them, to interfere with their natural way oi life. They follow certain ways which are sometimes vital to their health and to their well-being and existence. That is certainly so in the case I am going to cite. I am glad

to say that I think the conscience of the people who have been exploiting the native population is improving, if I may use that word. Certainly the conscience of the public has become aroused with respect to the depredations of those people who would make personal profits at the expense of human rights.
Our responsibilities to the Eskimos are nonetheless real because they are difficult to discharge. The difficulties are caused by inaccessibility, climate and the habits and customs of the Eskimo. I need scarcely say to members of the house who probably know me as well as I know them that I am very interested in the education of Eskimo children. In that sphere there will have to be a bold and imaginative program. It will have to be a program of sympathy and understanding.
The other day I was pleased to hear the fine tribute paid to the Eskimo people by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and to note the interest felt and expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), when he commended to the house the academic record of a very fine Eskimo student. When most of us think of the Eskimos I believe we are inclined to think of a people living along the shores of the sea or along the shores of bays and deriving their living largely from the fish they catch and the fur-bearing animals that prey upon the fish. That is not quite correct because there is a hinterland, and in that hinterland there are in existence what one might call inland Eskimos whose ways of life are somewhat different from those of the Eskimos who live along the seacoast.
That brings me to a startling book written a year or two ago called "People of the Deer". I think it is apt that I bring this book to the attention of the house as well as of the minister and his officials. The fact that there were inland Eskimos who had grave problems is brought vividly to the attention of the Canadian public through the publication of this book by Mr. Farley Mowat. By a strange coincidence my hon. friend to my right has a copy of that book upon his desk now. Perhaps the fact that he has a copy of it confirms the opinion I expressed a while ago that the existence of the book is of importance in connection with this subject.
The author of the book is a young man whose work, I believe, is growing in popularity. I see that he has had some stories published in the United States. Again, by coincidence, he is known to me because he received his high school training in my own city. This book by Farley Mowat caused a great deal of controversy, and it is really a
Northern Affairs and National Resources terrible-and I am using a mild word- indictment of the authorities who are at present responsible for Eskimo affairs. It describes what happened to a small inland tribe of Eskimos known as the Ihalmiuts. Hon. members will pardon my pronunciation, but they will understand that my education in the Eskimo language has been neglected. He asserts that this tribe was wiped out by actual starvation and that the authorities had considered much too lightly reports furnished by himself and other scientists upon that particular situation. He says that the relief, when provided, was too late and inadequate and of the wrong kind.
The book points out that by way of relief these Eskimos were given employment in certain private fishing industries and that when, as sometimes happens, these industries failed, due to a lack of markets or for some other cause, the Eskimos were left to their own resources and found themselves in a much worse position than they had been before. They were divorced from their usual way of life and their dependence upon the caribou or, as Mr. Mowat has described them, the deer. It is this dependence which gives Mr. Mowat the title for his book, "People of the Deer". He places great stress upon the need for the preservation of the caribou herd, a point to which the department might well give serious consideration.
I believe at the present time there is some co-operation between the provinces and the federal government in this matter of preservation. I know my own province has cooperated. A limit has been placed upon the number of caribou that can be taken and, so far as I am concerned, I would hope that the killing of caribou would be completely prohibited so far as tourists are concerned, particularly those who come in by aeroplane and are most destructive of this food which should be available for the Eskimos.
I must be fair in what I say and point out that Mr. Mowat's book was vigorously attacked in certain quarters, notably in a review by one A. E. Porsild, for a long time a senior official of the Department of Mines and Resources. Mr. Mowat was accused of mixing a good deal of fiction with fact. I do not think he expected his book to be looked upon as a completely scientific treatise. He was writing fiction. But if the facts upon which his fiction was based were as he has given them, then I say they do form a strong indictment of the handling of Eskimo affairs.
I was none too happy or too satisfied with answers to questions I placed on the order paper during the last parliament in regard to the matter. To my mind those answers

Northern Affairs and National Resources were pretty vague, and it looked to me as though the department did not know too much about it. This was quite evident, 1 thought, from the answers to my questions.
There are some authorities on the subject. Needless to say it is difficult to find authorities in matters of this kind, due to the rigorous climate and the difficulties of transportation. For these reasons private investigators or scientists cannot go into that country to spend a year or two with an assurance that they will have their living provided, unless they have the support of institutions such as governments. Such information as there is was the result of the work of some who had gone there on four or five different occasions at the behest of the government. But Mr. Mowat's claim is that their intervention was not too successful by way of ameliorating the situation he has described.
I shall refer to one authority; I shall not quote him, but merely mention his name. Hon. members will be free to look it up themselves. I refer to M. J. Miche of the French national museum who visited the Ihalmiut country in 1951 and described what he found there.
Then there is an interesting booklet which I suggest would be particularly valuable for officials in the department. This booklet is called "Greenland", and in it the Danes have set forth in great detail what they have done with and for their Eskimo peoples. They, of course, have an Eskimo problem but due to their own good efforts the problem with them is no longer a great one. In this pamphlet they set forth in great detail what they have done with and for their Eskimo population. I think it could be justly said on the basis of the accomplishments therein described that one could build a good case against our own comparative inactivity.
In conclusion I would express the hope that the minister in the new department would initiate in regard to the Eskimos an imaginative program such as that I have described. Perhaps I have not been very constructive in my suggestions, but I did want to draw to the minister's attention the assertions that a bad situation does exist, and if there is found to be anything in the assertions I urge that the difficulties should be cleared up.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member in the same predicament as the hon. member who just took his seat? It will be kept in mind that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) was speaking with the unanimous consent of the house because he

did not rise when section 5 was being discussed in committee. I sensed that the house wanted him to make his observations.
At this point, however, we have before us a motion that the bill do pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position of the hon. member for Saskatoon but, with your permission, I should like to detain the house a few moments.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a matter of gaining my permission. It is a matter of obtaining unanimous consent. One member has already spoken, and if it is the wish of the house another could speak.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us stick to the rules.


Jean Lesage: Perhaps the hon. member could proceed for two minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may
proceed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Speaking in the debate the other evening the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) made reference to a statement I had made giving credit to certain federal civil servants for having discovered a process for separating the ore at Flin Flon. Since there was some difference of opinion regarding the views expressed I should like to take a few moments to discuss the matter now.
A good deal of research work has been done since Tuesday night, and I now have quite a long report from the Department oi Mines and Technical Surveys, mines branch. They have gone back to 1920. I do not propose to take up the time of the house to read this long report, but it does state that in 1920 a request came from the Mining Corporation of Canada, who held the option on the property, subsequently the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited, to the department of mines for assistance in solving the metallurgical problems in connection with the treatment of the sulphide ore. Later this was extended to cover the disseminated ore
The department obliged and investigation started in 1921, and again in 1922, and reports were made. It was quite an interesting reporl that was presented in 1921, indicating thal the ore was valuable and that it was possible to develop it; but it was pointed out that the mines branch had only laboratory equipmenl and no large-scale equipment to make pilol runs in order to confirm laboratory findings The report goes on to say, however, that the most important point to note is that the mines branch investigation showed that the economic minerals could be separated intc good grade concentrates.

Mr. Green, the present general manager of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting company, in his history of the development and organization, points out that they had 300 tons of ore shipped to Denver, Colorado, not to Arizona or Utah, as the hon. member for Churchill mentioned, and not to a university but to a subsidiary of their own corporation. The Whitney interests had come into the picture, and they shipped 300 tons down there. It was Mr. S. P. Lowe who carried on the experimental work in Denver. The research work does not indicate that any Professor Coolbaugh took part in it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member tell me how he relates his remarks to the bill before the house?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was going to conclude shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the remarks of the hon. member are not in order he cannot continue, even though he is about to conclude.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This point came up on second reading of the bill. The hon. member for Churchill contradicted a statement that I made in my speech on second reading of the bill. On third reading of the bill I think I am in order in stating my reasons for having made the statement on second reading, and I shall conclude very shortly.
Again, at the request of Mr. R. E. Phelan, who is now general manager of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, a request came to the mines branch for a flotation engineer. Mr. A. K. Anderson was sent to the mine late in December, 1930, and in appreciation of the work Mr. Anderson did Mr. Phelan wrote the director of mines branch as follows:
We all thought very highly of Mr. Anderson and he has brought out two things which may be very important, one is the use of sodium sulphide and the other, the use of an Iron salt in the circuit.
The report I have been reading from is signed by Mr. L. E. Djingheuzian, head of the mineral dressing section of the mines branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jean Lesage: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories to provide-(a) that the governor in council may, after the expiration of two years from the return
Northwest Territories
of the writs of election, dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed: (b) that the governor in council may make regulations respecting reindeer similar to those already included in chapter 331 of the Revised Statutes, 1952;	(c) that the living allowances payable to
members of the council be raised to $25 as already provided in the said chapter 331;	(d) that the
governor in council may appoint a member of the council in place of an elected member who resigns;
(e)	for clarification of provisions of the acts relating to indemnity and living allowances; and further
(f)	that the act be amended by including therein provisions relating to the holding of land, similar to the provisions now in the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I would have thought there would have been some explanation given. Are we to receive no explanation on this before it is discussed?


Jean Lesage: I thought the resolution was quite clear and complete, but I might say a few words in explanation.


George Alexander Drew: I thought there were a few special points the minister might have considered should be brought before the house.


Jean Lesage: I might say a few words. At the 1952 session of parliament a number of amendments were made to the Northwest Territories Act to bring it into line with present-day conditions. At the same time it was considered desirable to consolidate the various amendments which had been made to the act since the last consolidation of the statutes of Canada of 1927. The result therefore was the enactment of a revised consolidated statute which appears as chapter 331 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. It was provided that the new act should come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council. This act has not yet been proclaimed because a number of its provisions cover ground which is now the subject of legislation contained in the proposed new Criminal Code of Canada.
As it is desirable that some of the amendments made in 1952 should come into effect as soon as possible, one of the purposes of the proposed bill is to incorporate these amendments in the old act which is still in force. Briefly, they provide for (a) the dissolution of the council after the second year; (b) changes in the indemnity and living allowances of the members; (c) extending the time for transmitting ordinances to the governor in council; (d) authorizing the governor in council to make regulations in respect to reindeer.
It is also proposed to make a number of minor amendments, some being amendments of the existing Northwest Territories Act and

Northwest Territories some being amendments of the new Northwest Territories Act which, as I have mentioned, will be proclaimed after the revised Criminal Code has been enacted by parliament. They provide for the filling of a vacancy on the council when a member resigns; and this, as hon. members know, happened last summer when the hon. member for Mackenzie River, who is sitting in the house at the present time, resigned as one of the members of council to run as a candidate for a seat in this house. As I say, they provide for the filling of a vacancy on the council when a member resigns and clarify the sections relating to the indemnity and allowances for members. Also authority is being sought to give the commissioner power to hold land for the beneficial use of the territories.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I wish to mention something that I think should be under consideration. I submit it at this point for the consideration of the minister who is sponsoring the resolution, having regard to the fact this is the resolution stage and that any suggestions could be incorporated before the bill was presented, if they commended themselves to the government as a result of the view that was expressed.
It seems to me that although the time is relatively short within which this area has been brought under some measure of administrative control from within the territory itself, the time has already passed to review and pass on it this session. At present the council consists of the commissioner and five members appointed by the government, whereas three are elected within the territory. The elections for these three representatives will probably take place next summer. I should think there would be a desire to move toward representative government in that area as rapidly as possible, consistent with the problems that exist and consistent also with the necessity of moving reasonably cautiously in dealing with such a large area.
I notice that one of the three constituencies includes Aklavik, Paulatuk and Stanton on the Arctic coast and also Fort Liard, which is within sight of the British Columbia boundary. The area is so enormous that it is impossible to imagine that any one person could even pretend to represent it. I realize that whatever division is made the area represented is going to be extremely large, but I should think the experience with this council has already reached the point where consideration might be given at this time to increasing the number of elected representatives to five as the next stage in the move


toward actual local representation, which would still give a substantial measure of supervision by the dominion government because the commissioner would still represent the balance between the elected and appointed bodies.
I should think the appointment of two additional elected members and the division of the area into five representative districts would make it possible for this new council which is to be set up in 1954 to come a stage closer to effective representation, and also to create areas of representation which would provide at least some opportunity to carry out the supervision that is expected, and to maintain some measure of relationship.
I should think the objective in the mind of everyone who has considered this subject is to reach the point where there will be no appointed representatives, where the whole council will be made up of elected representatives. We all look to the time when development will have increased to the point where even if this area is still short of actual provincial status, it will have reached a point rather similar to that, with such limitations as may be imposed by the actual population.
I should think right now would be a good time to make this change along with the change we have just been discussing in the name of the department which will deal with this subject matter. We are emphasizing our faith in the north, and it seems to me this is a good time to increase the number of elected representatives so they will balance the appointed representatives and give greater opportunity for representation, consistent with the same contact with the government. If this were done by way of amendment to the act which will be brought in as a result of this resolution, it would provide a most striking gesture of faith in the northland, the confidence which has been expressed in the form of the resolution with which we are dealing. It would also provide convincing evidence to the people living in the Northwest Territories that we are conscious of their desire to move as rapidly as possible, consistent with good judgment, toward the day when there will be self-government in that area.
I leave that thought with the minister, not only from the point of view of what I regard as an advisable step in the representation of that area but because we have been seeking to emphasize in the remarks that have been made our confidence in the north of Canada. I would think that we dramatize, or at least in some measure emphasize, our real belief in the north by taking positive steps of this kind.

I wish to mention one other matter which perhaps may not be too clearly within the ambit of this resolution, but which I suggest might well be given consideration by the minister. One of the very important operations of the government in the Northwest Territories, in the area covered by this legislation, is the Northern Transportation Company Limited. That transportation company is of immense importance to the development of that area. Those who have travelled through the Northwest Territories down the Mackenzie, and have seen the haulage of important freight on the Athabasca, on the Mackenzie and throughout that area will realize that this is a key transportation system in the development of the area.
As hon. members know, Northern Transportation Company Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. While it is true that the relationship between these two companies had to do with the fact that it was essential that there be a transportation system to carry out the ore from the Eldorado mine, that is only part of the activities of this Northern Transportation Company Limited.
I do believe that consideration should be given by the government to placing the supervision of this transportation system under the council which might well be charged with the responsibility for laying down the terms of operation, subject to the appropriate checks and balances, and also to consider the freight rates. An examination of the statements of the company in recent years will show that substantial profits have been made. So far as one can see from the statements adequate provision has been made for depreciation and other proper precautions taken to maintain the capital structure of the company.
That being so it seems to me that this privately-owned company should have regard to the fact that this is an essential service and that a reasonable profit would be the wise course rather than seeking to make large profits which impose burdens not only upon Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, which by virtue of the nature of its activities can well support them, but also upon all individuals and smaller organizations which use the system and find it vital to their activities within the area.
I leave these two suggestions with the minister in the earnest hope that they will receive serious consideration. I suggest, first, that at the very time we have emphasized our belief in the north we express once again our faith in the developments that have taken place within these 83276-50
Northwest Territories
past few years by increasing the number of elected representatives on the council and, second, that this great transportation system which is so vital to the development of the Northwest Territories be brought under effective supervision and some measure of direction by the council itself.


Jean Lesage: I just want to point out that
it was only in 1951 that this house decided that there would be elected representatives on the council, and I would add that the elected representatives, who in fact are sitting here in Ottawa this afternoon, are only in their fifth session. They have been elected only once and the number of electors is far from great, considering the large area they represent. I sincerely believe that it is difficult with the population scattered, as it is, and with islands of scattered population situated as they are, to have a better division than there is at present, but I will certainly discuss the matter tonight with the officials of my department and even with the members of the council who happen to be in Ottawa today.


George Alexander Drew: I was aware that the council
were here in Ottawa today, and it was because of that fact that I made the suggestion at this time. I realize the number of electors is very small by the standards of even the less populated constituencies in the southern part of Canada-


Jean Lesage: Even provincially.


George Alexander Drew: -or even in a provincial constituency, but I am not so impressed with the number of electors. I am more impressed by the fact that it would be a move toward self-government if we brought the number of elected members up to the number of the appointed members, for I think, without labouring the matter, it would be a significant gesture along with the assertions we are making of our belief in the Northwest Territories and in the act which we are now passing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not detect in the
minister's statement an exact indication as to the change in the law which is being brought about by section (a) which reads:
That the governor in council may, after the expiration of two years from the return of the writs of election, dissolve the council . . .
What does the existing act contain?


Jean Lesage: The act at present in force is chapter 195, which says there will be representatives elected for three years; but my hon. friend will understand that if they are elected for three years and sit for three years, the writs would then have to be returned1 and an election would have to be called during winter. That is why it is necessary

Northwest Territories
to give the governor in council power to dissolve the council before the expiration of three years so the writs can be issued and the election held exactly every three years. This provision is in the new law, chapter 331 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, which is not yet in force because we have to wait until the Criminal Code is in force before proclaiming it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One further question. I
observe in chapter 195, section 8, subsection 6, it says:
Where an elected member dies while in office, the governor in council may appoint a member in his stead for the balance of his term of office.
Is it proposed to change that, and is subsection (d) in addition to that?


Jean Lesage: Both chapter 195 and chapter 331 will provide that the governor in council may appoint a member not only when a member dies but when one resigns. That was a difficulty this very summer, when there was no provision to replace Mr. Hardie, after his resignation.


George Alexander Drew: I realize the minister did not
reply to my second suggestion, and I want to emphasize one aspect of this which I think is worthy of consideration, particularly at a time when the members of the council are here and there will be an opportunity to discuss it with them. I recognize that the Northern Transportation Company Limited, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eldorado Mining and Refining, comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I am not raising this point to suggest that it be transferred to the minister of northern development. The reason I am raising it is that I believe this is a vital part of the development of the Northwest Territories.
One thing that strikes me very forcibly in regard to this is that the value of the total assets of this company as shown in the 1951 statement amounted to $3,586,000 and the profits were $444,940. I think most hon. members will agree that this is a fairly large percentage of profits in relation to the estimated capital value of the assets of this company. Let me point out that these profits are all added to the cost of transportation.
I recognize that in the 1952 statement the profits are substantially less; nevertheless there is an interesting item which again might be worthy of consideration in relation to some of these things, for there was a loan of $600,000 made without interest to the Eldorado Mining and Refining company by Northern Transportation Company Limited. I think that might be a matter for consideration by the minister of northern development, as to whether it is wise to lend money to another

company instead of putting it into the expansion of transportation services which would help develop and open up this great northern land.
I leave that there. I am simply putting it before the house and the government as a suggestion, for I feel they should consider the advisability at this time of transferring supervision of this company to the council which protects the affairs of that area within which this company operates.


Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (b) provides that the governor in council may make regulations respecting reindeer similar to those already included in chapter 331 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. Can the minister tell us what the situation is at present with regard to reindeer herds in the Northwest Territories? I have an article here which appeared in the August 1, 1951, edition of Maclean's magazine entitled "We're missing our Future in the North", written by Vilh-jalmur Stefansson. Dealing with the possibility of raising reindeer in this area he has this to say:
As far as reindeer are concerned the U.S. department of agriculture estimated some years ago that Alaska could permanently support about four million head without overgrazing. Since Canada has about ten times as much permanent grazing land, I consider that it could support a reindeer industry of forty million head, which in terms of pounds of meat is equivalent to about eighty million sheep. The musk-ox, whose feeding habits are even better suited to the north than the reindeer, could do far better: I estimate that Canada's north could maintain a hundred million musk-ox, which is the equivalent of four hundred million sheep. What such a vast industry would do for Canada, and what such supplies of food might do to assist in other developments of the north such as mining and oil, I leave to your imagination.
We all know that Mr. Stefansson is a great expert on northern Canada, and I would be very interested to hear from the minister just how far the government has gone in the direction of establishing herds of reindeer and musk-ox.


Jean Lesage: In 1922 a royal commission recommended the introduction into Canada of an experimental herd of reindeer. After extensive field investigation, arrangements were made to have a herd of 3,000 reindeer delivered overland from Alaska to an area in the vicinity of Aklavik suitable for their maintenance. The trek commenced in 1929, and after many delays and hardships 2,370 reindeer reached their new home.
Since then a great deal of effort has been expended in developing this project, which was intended to supplement the game resources of the Northwest Territories and to diversify the economic base of Eskimo life by the introduction to Canadian Eskimos

of reindeer herding as a means of livelihood. Eskimos have been employed by the government as reindeer herders, and every effort has been made to induce them to substitute for their precarious hunting economy the more stable economy of reindeer herding. Over the years a considerable number have been trained in appropriate techniques for herding and caring for these animals, and have grown to rely in an increasing measure upon reindeer meat as an article of diet and reindeer hides for the manufacture of clothing and tents.
At the present time there are 7,731 animals in the herds owned and operated by the government. The main herd, comprising 2,685 head, is managed by government employees under the direction of the superintendent of the reindeer station. Three other herds have been placed in the sole custody of Eskimos, subject of course to supervision and advice by government officers. Legal ownership of all the reindeer is still vested in the crown, but the Eskimo herd managers have acquired an interest in their herds under agreements which it is intended will lead to private ownership. That is the reason for the regulations.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not through yet.


Jean Lesage: I will talk about the meat and the skins.


Howard Charles Green: I think it is highly important. I would ask the minister to continue.


William Alfred Robinson: I understood the minister was taking his seat.


Jean Lesage: I can give more details about reindeer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We want a great many more.


Jean Lesage: To continue, hon. members will be interested to learn that substantial quantities of meat from the reindeer herds are used in the Mackenzie valley. In addition, considerable use is made of the skins of the animals slaughtered, most of which are dried and shipped to Eskimos in the eastern Arctic where depletion in the last half century of the caribou herds has made the demand for skins for the manufacture of clothing greater than the available supply. The shipment to the eastern Arctic in 1952-53 comprised 550 skins.
Adaptation of the Eskimos concerned to the herder's life has now progressed to such an extent that it is considered desirable to place still more reindeer under Eskimo
Northwest Territories
management, and to pass title to their animals to herders who have proved their fitness and reliability. It is therefore necessary to add to the existing Northwest Territories Act authority for the governor in council to make regulations for the management of reindeer in the territories and for the transfer to Eskimos and Indians of title to reindeer.
The officers of the department of whom I inquired before coming into the house at noon tell me that they are now working on regulations which will permit that.


Howard Charles Green: Has anything been done about the musk-ox?


Jean Lesage: Not in the same sense. We propose to preserve them as much as possible.


Howard Charles Green: No steps have been taken to build up a herd of musk-ox?


Jean Lesage: If my hon. friend allows me to do so, I will answer hiis question in committee on second reading. I will certainly do that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I did not know I was so greatly interested in reindeer, but the minister has interested me very much.


Jean Lesage: I talk too much.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, not enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the Christmas season so we are all interested in reindeer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I understand the net result of what the minister said, then if we discount liberally those astronomical figures which appeared in the article in Maclean's and come back to the numbers which were actually successfully transported or taken from Alaska to their present homes, instead of having these what I call astronomical figures it would look to me as if we have a very small enterprise. They seem to me to have been looked after almost like domestic animals.
That is one thing I want to find out. The minister used the word "tended". I want to know if there is anything to indicate that if they are left in their native state there they are going to multiply so that, if we live even for a thousand years, we will have those figures or anything like them; or in other words, to come back to the point, is there any evidence that this is developing in such a way as to warrant, even to a modest extent, the hopes which we had when we started?


Jean Lesage: I am no expert on reindeer and I do not believe the hon. member for Greenwood is either, but my guess is as good as his. According to what I have read about

Northwest Territories
the matter, I believe our hopes are well founded. They may help the Eskimos, and that is a good thing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has this great advantage over me; he has experts at his elbow. I have only the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is an expert.


Howard Charles Green: Hon. members seem inclined to treat this matter with some levity, but I was greatly impressed by the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the potentialities of Canada's north. This may be one of the most important subjects this parliament will be dealing with in the years that lie ahead. I hope the minister will not be discouraged at all if there does not seem to be a great deal of interest at the present time in such things as this reindeer project or any other project that will develop the north. Stefansson is no fool. He is one of the most experienced Arctic explorers, and is a great Canadian. We know there have been tremendous developments in Siberia by the Soviet government which probably far surpass anything that has been done in northern Canada. We cannot be too optimistic about the possibilities of developing northern Canada. I was somewhat concerned about the minister's suggestion that his department is interested in reindeer only as a means of helping the Eskimo.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no; I did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: That is a very worthy aim.


Jean Lesage: Helping the economy of the north


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not say that.


Jean Lesage: -including the Eskimo.


Howard Charles Green: That is a worthy objective. In his remarks the minister mentioned only that it was to help the Eskimo. If Stefansson is within miles of being correct it may be one of the main methods of developing the whole economy of northern Canada. I hope the minister will keep that point in mind.


Jean Lesage: I just said that.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 77, to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNITED KINGDOM FINANCING, 1953 APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF LOANS

Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve the financial agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom, signed at Ottawa on the thirteenth day of August, 1953, respecting the repayment of the outstanding balance of the loans made to the government of the United Kingdom under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, if we can turn now from the much more interesting topic of our great north country and the reindeer that inhabit it to mundane financial matters, perhaps I might explain that the bill to be founded on this resolution is to approve the financial agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom signed at Ottawa on the 13th of August, 1953, respecting repayment of the outstanding balance of the $700 million loan made to the government of the United Kingdom under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942. This agreement prescribes, that is, the new agreement, new arrangements for the repayment of the interest-free loan and supersedes all previous arrangements with respect to this loan.
The terms of the new agreement call for the loan to be repaid in full by December 1, 1958, and it will continue to be free of interest until final redemption at that time. The United Kingdom agreed to make an immediate lump sum payment to reduce the amount outstanding under the loan to $150 million. This provision of the agreement was fulfilled on August 14 of this year by a United Kingdom payment of $38,648,118.84. The $150 million still to be paid on the loan will be settled by twenty quarterly instalments of $7J million each, payable on the 1st days of March, June, September and December of each year, the first instalment to be paid on March 1, 1954, and the final payment to be made on December 1, 1958.
The $700 million loan to the United Kingdom was made in 1942 under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act of that year. In the early part of the war, the committee will recall, and prior to the mutual aid arrangements, the large British deficit with Canada was financed by repatriating Canadian securities held by British investors and by the accumulation by Canada of large

sterling balances in London. In this way Canadian dollars were made available to the United Kingdom as a form of transitional financial assistance in order that essential war supplies could be bought in Canada without restriction arising from lack of foreign exchange.
By 1942 these sterling balances amounted to the considerable sum of approximately $1 billion. Under the 1942 legislation referred to, $700 million of these accumulations of sterling were converted into a formal loan to the United Kingdom government. The remaining balances were used for the purchase of Dominion of Canada and Canadian National Railways securities held by British investors.
Section 4 of the 1942 act authorized this loan in exchange for an obligation of the United Kingdom to pay $700 million, subject to such terms as the governor in council might prescribe. It further stated that no interest should be payable under such obligation prior to the termination of the war. By the United Kingdom financial agreement acts, 1946 and 1951, parliament authorized the continuance of this interest-free provision and maintained unchanged the other arrangements with respect to the loan, up to January 1, 1954. It was provided that discussion would be entered into prior to that date, that is prior to January 1, 1954, by the two governments with regard to the question of interest on, and terms of repayment of, any balances of the loan then outstanding. The discussions held between the two governments have resulted in the signing on August 13 of the new agreement, the terms of which I outlined.
Under the arrangements made in 1942 for repayment of the loan, it was agreed that funds arising from the redemption of Canadian securities owned in the United Kingdom or from the sale of such securities to nonresidents of the United Kingdom would be applied in reduction of the loan. In 1946 it was considered desirable that we should allow new direct investments, including the development of new enterprises or companies in Canada, or the expansion of United Kingdom-owned enterprises here, to be offset against the sales of securities for the purpose of calculating the amount which should be applied from time to time in retirement of this loan. Total offsets in respect of new direct investments in Canada up to the time of the signing of the new agreement on August 13 amounted to $71-6 million, of which $16-8 million was allowed for the purchase of aircraft.
United Kingdom Financing, 1953
As the agreement signed on August 13 provides that the United Kingdom government will pay off the loan directly, it consequently releases that government from its undertaking to apply to the repayment of the loan net proceeds of sales and redemptions of Canadian securities. The British authorities desired to obtain this release in order that they might make it possible for individual British investors to reinvest the proceeds of sales of Canadian securities in other securities of new and expanding Canadian enterprises of their own choice. This greater freedom and flexibility is in the mutual interest of both countries.
Net repayments of the loan up to the time of the signing of the new agreement had amounted to $511-4 million, or an average of some $48 million each year. The average rate of repayment in the years from 1948 until August 13, 1953, had, however, fallen to $31-7 million per annum. This was in some measure due to the offset provisions allowed for new direct British investment in Canada, but also to the fact that sales of Canadian securities by British investors had declined in the later years. The lump sum payment of $38-6 million made on August 14 and the annual repayment at the rate of $30 million will result in the final and full redemption of the loan on December 1, 1958.
Having in mind the interests of the two countries and the payments difficulties of the post-war world, the arrangements provided in the new agreement for the final repayment of the loan were considered by both the United Kingdom and Canadian governments to be mutually satisfactory.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make a few general comments, but I think I shall reserve them until second reading and content myself today merely with asking the minister a few questions.
There is one general observation however I should like to make now. When one thinks back to 1942 and to the readjustment of 1946, one cannot help reflecting on the conditions of those days and the almost unbelievable burdens which the British were bearing in 1942 and to which, happily, we contributed so much relief. When you come to consider the years since the war, the British have had a pretty grey existence, and they have struggled in a way which I am sure we all admire beyond words to pay their way, re-establish their credit and eventually emerge with strength in peacetime as great as the strength they showed in war.
I should like to ask the minister these questions. In the first place I should like to know how much in total is being paid by the

United Kingdom Financing, 1953 United Kingdom to us year by year at the present time, not merely on account of this loan but on account of other loans. I should like to know the position with regard to other advances we made, running to a good many hundred million dollars, to other countries. I should also like to know how much Britain is paying now year by year to the United States. I do not imagine the minister has those figures up his sleeve at the moment, but perhaps he will be good enough to give them to me. Perhaps I could get them from his office before second reading, but I should like them also to be on the record.
There is one other question I should like to ask the minister having to do with the all-important matter of convertibility. I think the last empire discussions were either last December or January, at any rate just about a year ago, and they are to be succeeded by discussions in Australia quite soon. I should like to ask the minister this question. The amounts involved are not very large, but I am wondering whether in the discussions affecting convertibility and going to the position of the British pound there was any discussion as to the desirability of deferring payments by Britain to us so as to increase to that extent the amount of her immediate purchasing capacity.
j We all wish that by some magic we could suddenly increase British purchasing capacity.
I would like to ask the minister whether that was discussed, or whether he feels the British attitude was that, in order to maintain the strength of their financial position which, after all, is at the very root of their working through to convertibility, the proper thing to do was to go ahead and pay their debts and not ask for any extension. I hope I have not asked too many questions, so that the minister will have any difficulty to carry them in his mind.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall deal first with the latter part of my hon. friend's question. In the discussions which have taken place from time to time in ithe last two or three years concerning the position of the sterling area, the matter of convertibility, and so on, the questions of the obligation of the United Kingdom under this interest-free loan, and under the loan agreements covering a very much larger loan made after the war, were not introduced. In those discussions no indication has ever been given that the United Kingdom government did not intend to live up to its undertakings both in the letter and in the spirit.
I shall get the figures for which my hon. friend has asked, and give them to him when we are in committee on second reading. As he will recall, the loan which was made to
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

the United Kingdom after the war was something of the order of $1,375 million. Payments on the loan have been made to date in accordance with the terms of the loan itself, and the same condition obtains with respect to the larger loan made by the United States at the same time.
So far as our post-war loans are concerned, they have all been met. The obligations under those loans have all been met in full on their due dates, with the exception of the loans to Czechoslovakia and nationalist China.
I believe the other questions my hon. friend asked involve matters of detail, and I can give specific information to him on second reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask one supplementary question. I do not know whether the minister would think this a fair question to put to him, but if he does not I am sure he will be able to answer it without indicating anything which would embarrass himself.
Would the minister think, from the participation he has had so often in these conferences, that the British would feel that any suggestion on their part in respect of concessions relating to their debts would have really operated against the strength of their currency or, in other words, would have been a deterrent and not an assistance in the matter of convertibility?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure my hon. friend would not want me to express even my personal views as to what the British, or my friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could 'or might think should be their attitude in connection with their external obligations. So that I do not think I should say anything more than I said a moment ago, that I have never gained any impression in any way that the United Kingdom government would wish to do otherwise than live up to both the letter and the spirit of the agreement it has made.
We all know that agreements, whether financial or otherwise, may need to be looked at again after they have run for some time, to see whether in the mutual interests of both parties some modifications might reasonably be made. I would not want any words of mine to suggest that it would not be quite appropriate to discuss that sort of thing; but certainly nothing of the sort has been discussed up to the present time.


Mr. Coldwell:: The minister has made a most interesting statement this afternoon. I recollect very distinctly how this loan was made. I recollect clearly the arguments

advanced, and I remember very well that I was of opinion that when this interest-free loan was made we might ask the British to hypothecate certain securities held in Great Britain not as a guarantee of payment, but more particularly to give us some say as to the final disposition of the securities when they passed out of the hands of the British government.
I was going to ask the minister if he could tell us what securities were disposed of in order to meet the various payments on the loan, and where those securities are today. Were they sold in Canada or, we will say, were they sold in New York, and the proceeds turned over to Canada in payment of the loan in dollars?
The other point I had in mind was something that has been discussed by the hon. member for Greenwood-as to whether at any time any suggestion was made along the line we have been advocating for years and which I was glad to hear the hon. member for Greenwood, at least by inference, support today-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You do not think I was
advocating it, surely?


Major James William Coldwell: -and that is that amounts due on this and other loans might be deferred without interest if the British government desired to use the funds that had been appropriated by that government for the purchase of certain goods in our country. I have in mind, for example, some of our surpluses.
I am not suggesting that the British might have asked that as a concession. What I am interested in is as to whether our government ever gave any consideration to making that suggestion. We have had surpluses of dairy products, canned salmon, apples, cheese and other commodities. I am leaving out wheat because I am thinking of the smaller amounts that would be involved in the purchase of these other commodities. Have we ever given any thought to such a suggestion, or has it been made by the British? I do not imagine they would make it; but have we ever thought of making such a proposal, which perhaps on our part would be a concession, in a sense, to defer these amounts without interest for a time, provided the amounts appropriated were used to ease our own economy in the matter of some of our surpluses.
I am glad to note, as I anticipated at the time, that the British have honoured these obligations as they became due. I never had any doubt that they would; and the Minister of Finance has stated they have. I think it is good for our people in Canada
United Kingdom Financing, 1953 to know that the obligations undertaken in these particulars are being met and carried out.
I was interested to know, too, that with the exception of Czechoslovakia and nationalist China the obligations assumed by other governments are being carried out. That is somewhat remarkable when one considers the impact of the war on the economies of the various countries concerned and with whom we were associated during those years.
I was particularly interested in the first point I have discussed, as to where these securities have gone. As I recollect, at the time we were suggesting that we might secure for the people of Canada the ownership of the large amount of Canadian Pacific Railway securities held in the United Kingdom. We thought they might be placed in the hands of the government, perhaps. That was not done. But if these were some of the securing that were repatriated or disposed of in order to meet obligations under this loan, where are those securities today?
I have been interested in this problem because I have noticed-and I do not know just how it has come about-that the securities of the Canadian Pacific Railway are now owned very largely in the United States. I felt at the time that this might happen, and I had rather hoped that we might be able to preserve ownership, if not for the people of Canada, through their government, at least in Canada.
I realize the minister may not be able to answer today, but perhaps he would do so later.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to answer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member let me make a personal explanation while the matter is fresh in our mind. I want to correct the impression which apparently I have given to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that I was advocating the delay of these payments. I was not advocating that at all. I was asking the minister what he thought was in the minds of the British. As a matter of fact, the minister was very properly cautious in expressing what was in their minds-


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that was the inference to be taken from the hon. gentleman's question. Perhaps I should not have taken it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would deduce from what the minister said that the British felt that the only thing for them to do was to pay their way right along, and that was the strongest way to strengthen their currency.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am very happy to answer the first question asked by the hon. member for

United Kingdom Financing, 1953 Rosetown-Biggar. As I mentioned in my statement, they received practically a billion dollars in 1942 and they were funded in this way. We repatriated, if I may use that term, $300 million of Canadian National securities and Dominion of Canada securities. They were purchased and turned over to us. So far as the remaining $700 million was concerned, we left the British government completely free to deal with the securities as they saw fit. We did not take any specific pledge on that; we simply required them to carry out this undertaking, that when those securities matured or were sold the proceeds of sale would be turned over to us in reduction of the loan. But the Bank of England, acting as agent for the British treasury, retained complete control as to when and how those securities were disposed of. It is perhaps worth noting that that was in contradistinction to the policy which was followed with respect to a similar loan in the United States, where they were required to dispose of their securities at the then rather low prevailing values; whereas, in the case of Canada, we have given them complete freedom to sell them as and when they pleased. They have made the sales which have been made when the market values for those securities were perhaps two or three times what they would have been had they been required to do so in 1942; but we retained over it no measure of control whatever. We never attempted to say when, where or how these securities were sold. The Bank of England made a quarterly report to the Bank of Canada, acting as agent for the government, of the sales or maturities which had taken place, and made the appropriate remittance to cover it. Therefore I am not in a position to say who bought the securities and who sold. That remains entirely within the control of the British government.
On the second point, as to the use of the moneys which might be available through deferment of the capital payments or the interest payments, any suggestion of that kind could only be made by the British government, and quite frankly the Canadian government has never given any consideration to suggesting it to the British government; because our impression has been that the British government were not anxious to continue to purchase supplies on credit, goods for current consumption on credit, and we have never considered it would be appropriate, even if it had been desirable, to make such a suggestion to them.


Mr. Hansell:: I should like to ask the minister one question. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions over the past years.


Has the agreement the effect of law at the present time? What I have in mind is this. We all pay due regard to the processes of our democratic way of life, and our democratic institutions, known as the parliament of Canada. On a number of occasions in years gone by-I suppose it is simply the practice of the government signing international agreements and then coming to parliament for a bill which in fact ratifies the agreement- this procedure has been followed. I have often wondered whether it is not putting the cart before the horse. In other words, to put it boldly, I have often wondered whether parliament has not become a bit of a rubber stamp. The agreement is already signed; it is laid on our doorstep and we are told: Here you are, boys; there it is. Of course under our system of parliamentary government where we have parties, the parties naturally rally around the agreement that their own government has signed. Let me put it this way. Suppose parliament should not see fit to pass this bill, where would that leave us?


Mr. Weir:: There would be another election.


Ernest George Hansell: I suppose the government would say that it was a vote of want of confidence and they would resign. That is not going to happen. Where would that leave the agreement? Would it still have the effect of law? Suppose another government took their place, what would happen then? Would the agreement still be in effect, or would that new government have to repudiate the agreement since no bill would have been passed? I am asking that because I know that in the past we have signed several agreements which we regret today having signed. There is no question about that. Financial agreements have been signed and the government regrets today having signed them. They were signed and of course the house passed them even though some members fought against them. The house adopted the agreements and complementary bills were passed. Can the minister answer my question? Does the agreement have the effect of law at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am very grateful to my hon. friend for having raised this question. I point out to him of course that it requires no agreement on the part of the government or ratification by parliament to accept payment of $38 million on what was owed us. That we can always do at any time. The only part of the agreement which has been signed which may require ratification by parliament-I am told by the law officers of the crown it is not certain that it does require formal ratification, that it is perhaps within the competence of the executive-the only part of

xhe agreement which would require ratification is the acceptance of the proposal that the balance of $150 million should be spread over the period which I have indicated, and it was made clear in the exchange of correspondence between the chancellor and myself that that part of the agreement was subject to ratification by parliament. The extension of this agreement has been before parliament on two previous occasions. I did indicate to the chancellor-I indicated to him of course that the government would recommend it-that I felt there was little doubt that parliament would be prepared to approve.
But answering my hon. friend's question specifically, the agreement, so far as the $150 million is concerned, spread over the next five years, has not the effect of law until it has been approved, and that has been made quite clear to the United Kingdom government. The agreement was signed, as these agreements always are in circumstances of this kind, subject to ratification by parliament.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Before this passes I should like to ask a question. Perhaps I misunderstood the minister. I understood him to refer to the War Appropriation Act of 1942 as having authorized a $700 million loan to Britain. My recollection of that act of 1942 is that a loan of $1 billion was authorized at that time. Has there been some subsequent arrangement, or have the British authorities not seen fit to take advantage of the appropriation that had been granted by parliament at that time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not of course the act before me at the moment, but I said in my statement that this non-interest-bearing loan was made under the terms of the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act of 1942. From 1942 on we did not make loans; we voted the money as mutual aid under the various war appropriation acts. I will look at the act between now and second reading, but as those who were in the house at that time will remember, under those acts we frequently authorized a number of different transactions. I imagine in this case we are authorized to deal with the $700 million noninterest-bearing loan and the $300 million for the repatriation of Canadian securities. In all probability it may have covered some other matters.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As a matter of fact I have Hansard right here containing Mr. Ilsley's speech on March 18. The hon. gentleman will find that there is reference to the $700 million, but I think the $1,000 million is another affair on another occasion.
United Kingdom Financing, 1953


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if the minister, between now and when we meet again to discuss this, could tell us the amount paid to the United Kingdom under mutual aid since the war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Roughly $5,000 million, but I will have the exact figure.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think at some point we should have a look at the total and decide whether or not it is as large as it should be. Recently I had the opportunity to compare conditions in the United Kingdom and the other side of the Atlantic with those before the war. While we finished the war with very valuable physical assets, while our cities were not bombed and there was no destruction of property, the damage across the Atlantic was tremendous.
I realize the problem faced by the minister. It is not easy to convince the Canadian people that they should be taxed in order to be more generous. However, I am concerned about the future of markets in the United Kingdom and I think at some point we should have a look at the matter to decide whether the terms are too stiff. As other hon. members have indicated, I believe that the British are anxious not to be in the position of asking for charity. We all realized that the outcome of the war was vital to us and I think the cost of repairing the war damage should have been of more general concern to the people on this side of the Atlantic. When the minister has the figures available we can look at them to see what Canada has done toward repairing the damage since the war.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make one comment on the interesting question asked by the hon. member for Macleod and the interesting answer by the Minister of Finance. It carried me back to another situation which it seems to me was quite similar, that is the Hoare-Laval agreement. Sir Samuel Hoare went to Paris and made an agreement, I presume with the authority of the British government of that day. But when he came back the thing was upset over the week end. Public opinion aroused itself to the point where it had to be abandoned. I do not think this is exactly the same but it seems to me that it does raise a point which the minister pointed out. Agreements of this kind, whether reduced to writing or not, are subject to final approval. Of course we are very hopeful that public opinion will begin to assert itself in some such way as that before long, but that time has not arrived yet.
786	HOUSE OF
Children of War Dead
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, to approve the financial agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United
Kingdom.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.


Mr. Brooks:: Has the parliamentary assistant any further explanation to make on this bill?


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I can add anything to the explanation I gave on Friday. This bill, if passed, will amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act to make eligible certain children who are presently not eligible. Benefits provided by the present act are being denied to a small group of Canadians who are otherwise qualified but whose pension was not in force on their twenty-first birthday. The members of this group are still under 25 years of age but for some reason or other they were not in receipt of pension on their twenty-first birthday. The bill proposes also to make eligible children of air raid precaution workers and members of voluntary aid detachments whose parents' deaths were attributed to war service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker,
when this resolution was before the house a few days ago I made a few comments with regard to it. The bill is not very extensive in scope. As the parliamentary assistant explained to us at that time, it is simply plugging up some holes that they found. Frankly I am surprised that there were not more holes found because the bill does not seem to meet all the requirements that we felt it should meet when the matter was before the house last year.
It will be remembered that the bill last year was discussed quite extensively and it created a lot of interest in the house and throughout the country. The bill had been held over for a long time. In 1946 the veterans affairs committee felt that some
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

attention should be given to providing assistance to the children of deceased veteran pensioners. The act has been in force since July, 1953.
I think it would be of interest to the house and to hon. members generally if the minister or his parliamentary assistant would let us know just what the situation is. We should like to be informed as to how many students are taking advantage of this assistance, what it is costing the country, and what the possibilities are for increasing the number of students. When the matter was before the house last year the minister told us that they anticipated about 1,200 students would be helped at a cost of $600,000.
When the bill was before the house the chief criticism of hon. members was that the $25 being paid was too little, that greater assistance should be provided. It was explained that tuition and other fees, as well as the cost of books, were being paid for. It has been long advocated by the Legion and members of the veterans affairs committees that the children of war veterans should receive the same assistance as unmarried veterans. As a matter of fact, this recommendation of the Legion has been before the veterans affairs committee at different times and has received the approval of that committee. For the information of the house I would like to read just what that recommendation was in respect to children of deceased servicemen. It reads as follows:
That the federal government instigate a policy for the children of deceased servicemen similar to that in force for single student veterans attending university or vocational training schools and receiving a monthly allowance under the rehabilitation act.
The amount that was given to single veterans, as hon. members will remember, was $70 besides tuition and a portion of fees. There is quite a difference between $25 and $70 and it certainly costs the student, or the child of a veteran's widow attending a university, just as much as it costs the single veteran, and I think, as I pointed out last year, that most of these students are under 16, 17 or 18 years of age. They were not like single veterans who came back and as grown men had an opportunity to go out and earn a great deal of money to assist in their education. These children under 16, 17 and 18 years of age had very little opportunity to earn money, and the means of the widow, of course, are limited by the amount of pension she receives.
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that there would be some amendment this year increasing the amount, for instance, that would be paid to those students. Another objection that was taken last year was that the bill restricted

to a university or college the educational institutions at which a student could attend. A student had to pass a matriculation examination at high school, and a girl, for instance, who wished to take a stenographic course was prohibited from receiving any assistance, or a boy or girl who wished to attend some craft or vocational school that was not a technical college was prohibited from taking the advantages offered under this act. We had hoped that some improvement might be made in that regard.
As a matter of fact, in regard to the bill before the house, I remember the minister suggesting that it was quite possible that certain adjustments would have to be made. I am satisfied that what he had in mind at that time, after listening to the suggestions of many of the members, was not merely that children over twenty-one years of age, who had been cut off from pensions for various reasons, should be included, or that children of the V.A.D. should be included. I am satisfied that the minister, after listening to recommendations by many members of the committee, must have felt that other amendments could and should be made.
I am not going to take up the time of the house to any greater extent except to say again that I was disappointed in the limited amendments that we have to this bill. The bill affects only 25 persons and while it is important in itself as far as these 25 persons are concerned it does seem to me that it does not go as far as one would expect in a bill of this kind. These children have waited for a good many years from 1946 to 1953, which is quite a long time in the life of any school child and I have not the least doubt that while we were waiting for an act of this kind to be put through many children of veterans lost the opportunity entirely of receiving an education.
The Canadian Legion had this in mind when it granted scholarships to children of a great many of our soldiers who died overseas. The I.O.D.E. too has been granting scholarships following not only this war but the last war also and on the same basis but not of course to the same extent as under Bill No. 236 which we passed last year. There are certain other questions which I would like to ask when this bill comes before the committee but these are my comments on it at the present time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unanimity in the house in the acceptance of this bill and in view of the small number of people it affects, I do not propose to make a speech in regard to the matter, except to say that I personally
Children of War Dead
welcome the bill and I think I can say that that is the opinion of every member of my party.
The last speaker has been critical of the bill in that it did not in a sense provide sufficient funds. He modified that criticism later, but I think there is one criticism that is valid, and that is that the bill has been brought down too late for a good many people. In other words, had the bill been brought down three years ago more people would have enjoyed its benefits, benefits which will now be denied them owing to the tardiness in implementing this bill, and because they are now over age.
However, in general we welcome this amending bill as we welcomed the previous bill passed on May 14 last. Each is after all an extension or widening of the scope of the very fine program of educational benefits for veterans initiated and carried out by this government and by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have met a lot of young people who have nothing but praise for that particular scheme and I like to pass on a word of praise when it is deserved.
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the provisions and the benefits of this bill to include more young people. It is unfortunate that not more than 25 people, which is the figure that has been mentioned, are going to benefit. Perhaps it should go further in extending assistance to veterans, but I will not discuss that at the moment. Where a soldier has died the benefits of this bill are extended to his children, benefits which he himself might have enjoyed had he lived. It is a step in the right direction. Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, any bill which extends, as this one does, aid to people in order to help them obtain education is a good bill as far as I am concerned, and when I say aid in the matter of education I mean such aid as can be provided by the federal government without in any way interfering with provincial autonomy in education.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: cannot let this bill pass without having a word to say, but before I proceed with my remarks I want to congratulate the parliamentary assistant on his appointment. This is the first opportunity I have had of doing so.
We are very pleased to see this amendment brought before the house, for the amendment was suggested by Legion representatives who made proposals to the cabinet on November 10 of this year. I am glad the government has seen fit to accept at least

Children of War Dead some of the proposals in the brief submitted by the Legion to the cabinet. The Legion took a great interest in this act when it came into operation, and so, I understand, did the officials of the department. As a result of the close watching of the act by the Legion and by the officials, these difficulties were discovered.	I	think it	was	an excellentillustration	of	co-operation between the
Legion and the officials of the department with respect to the operation of the act.
I want to add this, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the department on the efforts they made	to	bring to the	attention ofveterans and their dependents the terms of this bill after	it came	into	operation. I
noticed advertising in certain papers and that Legion provincial commands were informed and as a result all Legion branches. I think that practice could be followed with respect to certain other veterans legislation that is amended and improved from time to time. I had a number of people who were pleased to receive that information by advertising in the press and through other channels.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will give further consideration to some of the other proposals made by Legion representatives on November 10. But this bill is not quite all that the former members of the veterans affairs committee would like to see before the house at this time. While it provides for a certain limited number of people who were left out because of unusual circumstances and unforeseen circumstances, it does not go as far as the Legion and a good many members of the veterans affairs committee would like it to go.
At this point I should like to quote a second recommendation made in connection with this bill, and made by the Legion when discussing this matter with the cabinet on November 10. The Legion made this recommendation:
That the Educational Assistance Act be amended to provide assistance to orphans seeking vocational training, provided they meet other qualifications required by the act.
We would further recommend that the benefits of this act be extended to orphans who complete the work of the first year of college in high school.
Then in addition to this recommendation the Legion representatives made this comment, and I am going to quote it because I think it is most interesting. I may say that I support it. They said:
It seems obvious that children, otherwise qualified, who seek vocational training have the same claim to assistance as do those who undertake college or university training. There is an extreme shortage of skilled journeymen in many trades in Canada today and this shortage is likely


to become more pronounced as Canadian industries expand unless a special effort is made to train such men and women.
I know that a good many members on this side of the house agreed with those proposals. When the bill was introduced at the last session we were disappointed that in addition to university and college training, it did not provide for vocational training. I for one cannot see why the children of deceased veterans who do not wish to go to university or college or to take academic training are not allowed the opportunity, through provision in this bill, to take vocational training. What a necessary thing that is in this country, Mr. Speaker. Look at the shortage of skilled carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, decorators, mechanics of various types, stenographers, stewardesses and machine operators. I think that industry in general-having regard to the development of our industries and the construction that is going on in Canada- requires an ever-increasing flow of these people who have obtained the skills which are obtained through vocational education and not generally through university or college education.
I make a plea to the parliamentary assistant and to the minister to use their influence with the government and to see if we cannot add one more amendment to this bill in order to make it as satisfactory as it should be. There are a large number of worthwhile children who are not able to receive assistance under this legislation because they do not desire to take university or college training. But if they had the opportunity to receive the assistance which is provided for those who take university or college training-which we appreciate greatly indeed and which those who receive it are appreciating greatly-in order that they may undertake vocational training, it would be the means of increasing in this country the working force of skilled artisans who are so necessary in our expanding economy.


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


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the parliamentary assistant not going to make a statement?


Colin Emerson Bennett: I will.


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary assistant speaks now, he will close the debate.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments and criticisms of hon. members opposite who have had a great deal more experience in veterans affairs than I have. As has been said, I think that this

bill has the wholehearted support of all hon. members in the house. The criticism has been offered-and we usually hear this same criticism when other government bills are introduced-that the bill does not go far enough. It is true that the present act draws a line between secondary and what is called higher education, the criterion being whether the proposed higher education requires high school graduation or matriculation for admission. As we know, such would be the case with most university courses, with admission to recognized hospitals for graduation of registered nurses, technical schools, normal schools, and there may be others.
I am sure all of us in this house would like to deal as generously as possible with veterans and particularly with children of deceased veterans. I cannot think of any argument at all against the point that was stressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) with regard to the value of vocational training and the lack of skilled tradesmen in Canada. It is true, however, that free tuition is being supplied by our secondary schools-commercial, technical and ordinary high schools-and that that education leads in most cases to admission to the majority of occupations. While those children are attending the secondary schools, they are being paid, if otherwise qualified, under the Pension Act, under schedule B, at orphan rates, provided of course that they are doing satisfactorily at school, until they reach the age of 21 years.
As hon. members know, the thinking behind this present act is that additional assistance was necessary if children of deceased veterans were to go on to higher education. The principle, of course, is that this higher education would have been available to the child if the veteran had lived. I think hon. members would agree that higher education, as compared with secondary education, is more expensive in that it is for a period of years, it costs more in terms of cost of living because the student is older and in addition, there are of course tuition fees to be paid.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) asked how many students are benefiting at the present time. The answer to that question is that, as of October 21, 225 applicants have been approved for assistance under the new act which was effective July 1, 1953. There are 118 boys and 107 girls.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the parliamentary
assistant break that figure down into the different courses?
Children of War Dead


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes, I could. Engineering, 38; nursing, 40; teaching, 33; science, 31; business administration, 16; law, 8; chartered accountancy, 7; theology, 8; medicine, 7; applied arts, 6; therapist, 4; social work, 4; journalism, 4; librarian, 3; pharmacy, 3; psychologist, 3; foreign service, 2; actuarial science, 2; forestry, 3; dentistry, 1; political economy, 1; chiropractics, 1. Science includes dietitian, geologist, chemist, laboratory technician and so on.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That number is much
smaller-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we are entering on debate which is only in order at the committee stage.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I might anticipate the hon. member's question. I think it was announced by the minister in the debate last April that it was the estimate of the department that a greater number will be graduating from the secondary schools between 1956 and 1962. That is when the peak of these 1,200 students which were estimated at the time of the passing of the act will be graduating from the secondary schools.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is a question of age.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes; as to age. I think all the points that were raised today were answered in the debate last April. All I can say is that this act is, I think, recognized as providing for a great need in the veterans charter. It has been enthusiastically accepted all across Canada, and the present amendment is merely to cover the small group who were overlooked when the act was drafted last year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Student defined.
George Randolph Pearkes: During the debate at the resolution stage I asked the parliamentary assistant whether the orphans of men of the merchant marine who had lost their lives would be included under this legislation. I think his answer was given rather off the cuff, and without the consideration that he intimated had been given to this question. His answer was that the amendment did not go that far. I think that the parliamentary assistant will find on further consideration that a child of a member of the merchant marine who lost his life at sea is in exactly the same position as the child of a deep-sea fisherman who lost his life at sea through enemy action. He would be included under schedule B, and as the children covered by
790	HOUSE OF
Children of War Dead
schedule B are included in this legislation I would ask the parliamentary assistant to review the answer he gave and tell me whether orphans of men of the merchant marine who lost their lives at sea as the result of enemy action are included.


Colin Emerson Bennett: The hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich is quite right. I recognize him as one of the experts on veterans affairs in the house, and I must say that I misunderstood his question because I thought he was inquiring whether the clause was being extended as far as eligibility of class was concerned. I thought that he knew that the children of deceased merchant marine people were covered. The answer of course is that schedule B of the present Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act applies which means that the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, part I, governs, and that includes the merchant marine.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the parliamentary assistant for his generous reference to myself. However, I could not have known beforehand because the bill was not in our hands and we did not know that there was a schedule B. Nevertheless I am very pleased that children of deceased members of the merchant marine are included.


Colin Emerson Bennett: The schedule was part of last session's bill, which became effective on July 1, 1953.


Howard Charles Green: In the debate which took place in the house on April 20, 1953, the minister said that whereas there were 12,000 children who had lost their fathers only about 10 per cent would benefit under the legislation, or approximately 1,200. Does that view still stand or must the estimate of the department be changed?


Colin Emerson Bennett: In round figures, the figure still stands. The number that I quoted, 225, is running fairly close to the estimate.


Howard Charles Green: Then the estimate is that over the years the maximum number that will benefit will be 1,200.


Colin Emerson Bennett: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In subsection (c) of section 2 of the act we find the following, "discontinued by reason of the child having reached the age of 21 years". Suppose the child of a deceased war pensioner is 22 years of age. Can he begin a university course at that age?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Provided he qualifies under the four subsections of section 1.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As to matriculation and so on?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes. He has to have his matriculation and he has to qualify otherwise.


One of the reasons for this amendment was that phrase in paragraph (iii) of section 2(c), "discontinued by reason of the child having reached the age of 21 years". As I explained on the resolution stage, if for one reason or another the pension was discontinued to a child at age 19, then under the old wording he would not be eligible if he were now 22. Now he becomes eligible.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was thinking of a young man who did not matriculate when he was 16 or 17 and who is now able to get benefit under this act. He matriculates at 20 or 21, which often happens, and attends university at 22. In that event he would not graduate until he was 26 or 27. Looking at last year's act, I see that section 5 reads as follows:
No allowance or costs shall be paid under this act in respect of a student who has attained the age of 25 years except in so far as may be necessary to enable him to complete the academic year in which he attains that age.
In the case of anyone entering college at 22 and graduating at 26 I would think that there is a contradiction there, and I was wondering if the parliamentary assistant had noted it.


Colin Emerson Bennett: As the hon. member for Royal knows, the age limit of 25 was placed in the original act because it was the view that children of veterans should start their university career or other training course at the normal age of 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 or 21. The hon. member has raised a good point. This is a new act, and I am sure that if cases of hardship are brought to the attention of the minister consideration will be given to the age limit. As a matter of fact, I did think of that point and discussed it with the officials of the department, and I was told that no such cases exist at the present time. Does the hon. member know of any?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not know.


Colin Emerson Bennett: But if there are I assure the hon. member that sympathetic consideration will be given to them.


Mr. Casileden:: Having regard to the age limit of 21, has the parliamentary assistant any figures as to the approximate number of people who have been excluded because of this clause?


Colin Emerson Bennett: There are twelve children attending school who will receive direct and immediate benefit from the passing of this amendment. As I said on the resolution stage, it is thought that the total number will not exceed twenty-five, but there are twelve at school now. As you can see, the benefits of the legislation are retroactive to July 1, 1953.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it not possible to interpret the act in any way so that students who want to continue with vocational training can receive these benefits? I understand there is no interpretation of the act at the present time which would permit any student to apply for vocational training of any kind.


Colin Emerson Bennett: If the hon. member means vocational training at the secondary level the answer is no, but of course there are some technical institutes that require matriculation or high school graduation, and that type of vocational training is covered by the act.


Howard Charles Green: Can the parliamentary assistant give us an example of such an institution?


Colin Emerson Bennett: In my own province I think the Ryerson Institute in Toronto is one. There must be others in other provinces.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The technical institute in Halifax.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the National Parks Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the
Governor General, having been made acquainted with the purport of this bill, has given consent, so far as Her Majesty's property rights are affected, that the house may do therein as they shall think fit.
I should like at this point, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about the purpose of the bill. I am sure hon. members will agree that the amendments proposed are not extensive. They are, however, important, as they will assist in the orderly and efficient administration and development of our national parks.
We are all familiar with the manner in which the national parks of Canada were established and the legislative provisions which have been made in the past to assure that the parks would be preserved for all time as part of our Canadian heritage.
The National Parks Act was passed in 1930 and placed the national parks of Canada on a statutory basis for the first time. Since then, amendments have been passed at
National Parks Act
various times to meet changing circumstances, to authorize extensions to the national parks system and to provide for better administration. The last amendment was passed in 1948. Since that time, it has become apparent that certain sections of the present act should be clarified and that certain changes should be made to permit the reasonable solution of problems which have arisen.
Perhaps the most important change proposed is that the governor in council be empowered to authorize the Minister of Resources and Development to enter into agreements with a province or any person for the development, operation and maintenance of public utility services in a national park, including telephone, electric power and natural gas for use only in the park. While in some cases it might be the most reasonable course for the department to undertake such a project, in other cases it might be found more efficient and economical for this type of service to be undertaken by private enterprise or by a provincial hydroelectric power commission. The proposed amendment would make such an arrangement possible.
A case in point has been the supply of power for Jasper national park. In 1948 the department entered into an agreement with the Northland Utilities Limited whereby the company would construct for the department a small hydroelectric power plant on the Astoria river. The funds were provided by the department, and the company has since operated the plant under lease. Power needs at Jasper have grown considerably and a larger plant is required. We believe the practical and efficient solution is to permit the company to purchase the existing plant, construct an addition and continue to operate the enlarged facilities. The company has indicated its willingness to participate in this arrangement.
A second important amendment would permit municipalities, water districts and other persons adjacent to a national park to obtain a supply of water from a park for domestic purposes. Many streams and rivers arise within the park boundaries and many persons outside the parks are dependent on these waters for their domestic supply. In the course of park operations and development it sometimes becomes necessary to pollute streams or otherwise interfere with the natural flow of water leading from the park. In these cases, persons living outside the park may suffer.
The amendment now before the house would permit these persons to obtain a supply of unpolluted water from within the

National Parks Act
park. The necessary facilities for bringing the water to the park boundary would be installed by the parks administration and reasonable charges would be made for the water supplied.
The present act makes no provision for the issue of permits authorizing public use of camp grounds or the levying of a charge for lots in the camp grounds. Owing to the increase in the number of camp grounds and their greatly increased popularity, it has become necessary to have regulations to govern their use. The proposed amendment therefore provides that authorization be given to the governor in council to make such regulations so that a proper administrative control may be established.
The present act provides for the leasing of lots in town sites for purposes of residence or trade and for the leasing of lots in other subdivisions during summer months. Provision is also made for the granting of licences covering lands outside town sites or subdivisions for entertainment of visitors.
Lots in town sites are leased for year-round occupation when used for the purpose of residence or trade, whereas lots in subdivisions are leased for the summer months and only for the purpose of residence. That, in effect, is the difference between a town site and a subdivision.
As a result of the expanding activities in the parks it is desirable that the authority for the granting of leases should be more clear and extended in some respects. Again, the granting of licences for lands in unsurveyed areas is restricted to purposes for the entertainment of visitors. It is proposed to enlarge this authority to include schools, hospitals and churches. Authority is also being sought to grant leases for these purposes rather than licences which are more limited in character.
I am sure that hon. members who are familiar with the problem of park administration will recognize in these proposed changes the means through which a number of improvements can be made and the over-all efficiency of park operations increased.
When we were in committee at the resolution stage the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) asked a number of questions about bungalow cabin accommodation. In reply I would say that when the need for additional tourist accommodation in a park has been established, it is the policy of the department to allocate suitable sites for that purpose, and to advertise all such sites in a public call for tenders, in the local newspapers.
[Mr. Lesage.l
The following is an example of a call for tenders:
Public Notice Call lor Tenders for
Auto Bungalow Camp Concession Banff National Park
Sealed tenders for the right to establish an auto bungalow cabin camp on a site comprising 2-5 acres on Tunnel mountain, presently occupied by Kanvas Kabin Camp, will be received by the superintendent of Banff national park, up to 12 o'clock noon on Monday, October 30th, 1950. Tenders should be addressed to the superintendent, Banff national park, Banff, Alberta, and marked "Tender for bungalow camp concession". Each tender must be accompanied by a deposit of not less than ten per cent of the amount tendered, in the form of an accepted cheque, money order or draft, made payable to the Receiver General of Canada. The highest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
Particulars concerning the site to be made available, conditions to be complied with, terms of agreement and licence which may be issued, and the basis on which the award of the concession will be made, may be obtained from the park superintendent.
James Smart Controller
Ottawa, October 10, 1950,
National Parks and B!istoric Sites Services, Department of Resources and Development.
The period over which tenders may be submitted varies from three weeks to one month.
The tender is usually awarded to the applicant submitting the highest bid, subject to the provision that he has furnished, or can furnish, satisfactory written evidence of financial responsibility in the form of a letter from the manager of a bank or other financial institution.
The successful tenderer is then issued an interim lease for a term of two years. This lease provides for the submission of plans and specifications satisfactory to the department within a stated period, usually six months, and for completion of buildings having a stated value within the term of the interim lease. If, at the end of the term of the interim lease, all conditions have been fulfilled, a long-term lease, usually for twenty-one years, is then issued. If all conditions have not been complied with another interim lease for two years is usually granted.
In the allocation of sites for tourist accommodation it is the policy so to choose the sites that no unfair competition results.
Another question by the same hon. member had to do with the amount of money spent during the last complete fiscal year in Banff, Jasper, and Waterton Lakes parks. The expenditures during the fiscal year 1952-53 were as follows: for Banff, $880,554 for administration, operation and maintenance; and $381,625 for construction and acquisition of equipment; for Jasper, $513,315 for

administration, operation and maintenance and $550,583 for construction and acquisition of equipment. In Waterton Lakes park there was spent $187,857 for administration, operation and maintenance and $327,258 for construction and acquisition of equipment.


Ernest George Hansell: Would that construction
include roads?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jean Lesage: I just answered yes.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few brief remarks I should like to make in connection with this bill, since one of the most popular national parks in the country lies entirely within my riding. I refer of course to the national park on Prince Edward Island. This park contains within its boundary a great length of excellent beach and very fine tourist accommodation, and also of course the area which is connected with the setting of the very popular and widely known series of books written by Lucy Maud Montgomery, and this factor alone brings a large number of tourists to visit our national park there from all over North America.
As far as the administration of the park is concerned, there are a few brief observations I should like to make and then I am through. The first is that although considerable progress has been made in the building of roads in this park, there is still progress to be made in that direction before the park can fulfil its function to best advantage.
In connection with accommodation, there are fine hotels in the area and also tourist cabins which are run by individuals, and built entirely out of their own capital, of course. These people have begun to fear- I do not know whether their fears are justified or not-that there may be considerable construction of tourist accommodation by the department in this park which will compete unfairly with private industry which caters to the tourist trade in the area. I hope their fears are completely unfounded. I would be glad if I had that assurance from the minister because I feel that the tourist accommodation now provided entirely by local people is provided from the investment of their own money. They have an interest in the best possible administration of the accommodation which is provided, and it is
National Parks Act
only reasonable of course that this accommodation should come up to a very high standard so that as a result the tourist trade in that area will continue to grow.
I wish the new minister every success in his duties in connection with our park, and I hope at a very early date he will be able to come down personally and visit us, perhaps sometime during this summer.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I
want to take this opportunity to raise three points that have to do with this bill and are of particular interest to our national park in Manitoba, namely the Riding Mountain national park. I could say all the fine things that the hon. member for Queens has said in reference to the national park on Prince Edward Island, but it is well known to all hon. members that the national park in Manitoba annually draws the second largest number of tourists of all national parks in Canada. That fact speaks for itself.
As I examine this bill, it seems to cover three matters that have been topics of discussion by all those who have a special interest in our Manitoba park. First of all, the terms of the bill would tend to suggest that there is a new policy relating to national parks to have them operated on an all-year-round basis. At the present time in Manitoba, partly arising from weather conditions, our park is a summer resort exclusively. During recent years the suggestion has been put forward that a park having the facilities of Riding Mountain park might very well serve as a winter resort as well as a summer resort. As I see the various terms of the bill indicating that provision is to be made for schools and hospitals, or at least the conditions are going to be set up making it possible to establish those services in the national park areas, it seems to me that this is a move in that direction. Perhaps later on in the discussion the minister might clarify that point so far as Riding Mountain national park is concerned, at least.
I would also point out that at Clear lake, which is the popular name of the park, it has been felt that there is need for a community hall of some type which would provide accommodation for large meetings. At the present time the only facilities available are to be found in the museum, a relatively small log cabin type building with quite a small auditorium. This matter might be taken into consideration by the minister. No doubt he will have an opportunity to visit the park in the near future to see the need for these improvements for himself.
It has been drawn to my attention that there is a special problem in our Manitoba

National Parks Act
park in connection with hydro services. These have been provided by the purchase of power from the Manitoba Power Commission which in turn is sold to power users within the park. It has been suggested that the rates under this arrangement are rather exorbitant when compared to those prevailing generally in the province of Manitoba.
For example, a user of electric energy in the park pays ten cents for the first 50 kilowatt hours, eight cents for the next 150, and five cents for the balance as compared with the rates outside of eight cents for the first 50 kilowatt hours, two cents for the next 150, and one cent for the balance. It is pointed out that because of these comparatively high rates many of the camp operators, motel owners, cottage owners and so on are converting to gas and oil for cooking and heating purposes. I am hopeful that arising out of this new bill the power situation existing in Riding Mountain national park will be taken into consideration. I understand that several petitions have been presented already to the minister and I hope it will be found possible to get around these difficulties.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to repeat what I had to say the other night with reference to Waterton Lakes park, but I do wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the appropriation for Banff last year was much larger than the appropriation for Waterton Lakes park. I am not advocating any reduction in the appropriation for Banff, but I do want the house to remember the two or three points I made the other night.
The first was that for various reasons Water-ton Lakes park seems to have been neglected for the last twenty years. The amount of money spent on the park has been negligible. I do not think it was because the department was unwilling to spend the money; it just was not spent. That deficiency should be made up.
My second point was that Waterton Lakes park is just as important as Banff and Jasper, or perhaps even more so. This park is a show window for Canada. This is most significant in connection with tourist traffic coming into Alberta. If people get the right impression of Alberta or Canadian parks when they enter Waterton Lakes park, they will be encouraged to go on to Banff, Jasper and the other Alberta and Canadian parks. If they do not get the right impression they are likely to turn back and go home. We cannot afford to neglect this opportunity. In this connection let it be remembered that this country is constantly faced with an adverse balance of trade with the United States. We should keep

in mind that one of the easiest ways to bring about a favourable balance of trade with that country is to bring their tourists here and get them to spend their money.
The third point is that there are tremendous possibilities of development in Waterton Lakes park, more so than in any other park in Alberta, and perhaps in Canada. Let the government keep these considerations in mind when they come to make up the appropriations for next year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Administration, management and control.
Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: I understand that the commissioner has been done away with and that these matters have been under the control of the minister. What change will be brought about by this section?


Jean Lesage: It is simply to bring the statute in line with the present situation. The position of commissioner of parks was abolished when the Department of Mines and Resources was established. The present section reads:
There shall be a commissioner of national parks who, subject to the direction of the minister, shall control, manage and administer the parks.
As I said, the functions of the commissioner have been abolished and we are rewriting the section to provide that the administration, management and control of the parks shall be under the direction of the minister.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: If the commis-sionership was abolished when the parks came under the Department of Mines and Resources, who has been running the thing up to now?


Jean Lesage: The Minister of Mines and Resources and then the Minister of Resources and Development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under what authority?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Leases.
Walter Edward Harris: Unfortunately the minister in charge of this bill will not be able to be present tonight so at eight o'clock we will proceed with the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence. Should that be completed we will proceed with Bill No. 29, to amend the Customs Act.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Ralph Osborne Campney: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Defence Services Pension Act to provide for the payment over a period of years of succession duties on the pensions of widows and children and to make certain minor adjustments in the present law; also to amend the National Defence Act to authorize the sale of material under section 11 of the act to international welfare organizations, to provide for a credit of rebates of duties and taxes upon material sold under that section, to make possible more effective administration of the estates of servicemen who die out of Canada, and to make certain amendments with regard to persons accompanying Canadian forces; also to make an amendment to the Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty) Act consequential upon the enactment of the Crown Liability Act; also to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act in relation to time spent by members of the House of Commons on military service; and also to amend the Canadian Forces Act, 1950, to enable members of the regular forces who served in the Korean theatre in the special force to count the time so served for all purposes under the Defence Services Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the minister going to make a statement on this resolution?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the bill
which would be introduced in consequence of the adoption of this resolution would be entitled the Canadian Forces Act, 1954. It would be a bill similar in title and scope to the Canadian Forces Act passed by parliament in 1950, 1951, 1952 and at the last session. Hon. members will recall that those measures contained various provisions respecting national defence including amendments to the National Defence Act and to other statutes.
The bill which would follow this resolution, as is the case of its predecessors, would include amendments to several different acts, in this case five in number. These acts are: The National Defence Act; the Defence Services Pension Act; the Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty) Act; the Senate and House of Commons Act; and the Canadian Forces Act, 1950. All matters dealt with in the bill relate directly to national defence.
Canadian Forces Act
The proposed amendments to the National Defence Act deal with a variety of subjects. Two of them, one relating to the enforcement of foreign customs laws, the other to the arrest of dependents of service personnel out of Canada, are designed to fulfil Canada's obligations under arrangements which have been made with foreign countries in which Canadian forces are serving.
Another proposed amendment to the National Defence Act would make it possible for defence material to be sold to international welfare organizations to be used for the relief of distress, in addition to foreign governments only, as is now the case.
Another proposed amendment would facilitate the administration of the estates of servicemen who die abroad.
Still another would remove any doubt as to the authority of service tribunals to restore stolen property to the rightful owners.
One of the more important amendments proposed would define the classes of persons who, although not members of the forces, are subject to the code of service discipline because they accompany the forces. One of those classes would be dependents of servicemen who accompany the Canadian forces out of Canada. Although it is proposed that such dependents should be subject to the code of service discipline, they will be triable only by a civilian judge or a barrister or advocate of ten years' standing appointed for the purpose. The purpose of this proposal is to enable dependents who are accused of having committed criminal offences abroad to be tried in all possible cases under Canadian law rather than under the law of the country in which the serviceman on whom they are dependent is posted.
There are several other proposed amendments to the code of service discipline. These are of a technical nature and can best be explained in detail when hon. members have the bill before them.
The bill contains several proposed amendments to the Defence Services Pension Act. The most important of these would enable the governor in council to make regulations providing for payment from the consolidated revenue fund of succession duties payable by a child or widow in respect of a pension and to provide for the manner in which such a payment shall be recovered from the pension. This provision would be similar to a provision of the Public Service Superannuation Act that this house enacted at the last session for the benefit of the widows and children of deceased civil servants.
The other amendments to the Defence Services Pension Act affect only limited classes of persons and are of a technical

Canadian Forces Act
nature. Only one amendment to the Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty) Act is proposed. It is consequential upon the enactment at the last session of parliament of the Crown Liability Act and would place visiting military forces in the same position as the Canadian forces in respect of claims for damages by the public.
The proposed amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act would enable members of this house and of the other place who are members of the reserve forces of any of the services to perform their military duties without loss of sessional allowance. The present provision of the act relating to this matter is restricted in its application to service with the army reserves.
The proposed amendment to the Canadian Forces Act, 1950, would amend a provision of that act relating to the application of the Defence Services Pension Act to members of the forces who were enrolled for the purpose of serving in the Korean theatre. The amendment would enable the governor in council to permit such members who have decided to follow a military career to count their Korean service for pension purposes.
Mr. Chairman, the foregoing matters are of considerable importance to our defence forces and I, therefore, commend this resolution to the committee for its favourable consideration.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, this would
seem to be another of those omnibus bills, embracing amendments to five other acts of parliament, which are becoming so dear to the heart of the minister. We on this side of the house feel that this is a clumsy and unusual way of dealing with amendments to acts of parliament, but it would seem to be a method to which the Department of National Defence has now become accustomed and I can only say it is their funeral, not ours.
It must be, I should think, extremely complicated and difficult for the officers of the department to find if there are amendments to bills of such a wide range in dealing with so many different subjects as are dealt with under one amending bill. In one case we have amendments to the Defence Services Pension Act, and then we have amendments to the Visiting Forces Act, matters which are not related in any respect at all. Amendments to the Senate and House of Commons Act bear no relation whatever to the amendments which we believe will be introduced in this act.
It is now becoming the custom of the minister to introduce amendments of this nature and it has been going on for the last three or four years. There does not seem

to be any solution to this. We have raised our voices in objection to this type of omnibus bill in the past but our warnings have not been heeded. As to the various amendments which are to be introduced to these various acts, we have not the bill before us. Until we have it, it is extremely difficult for anybody to comment on the actual details of the bill. It is therefore probably better to leave any detailed discussion until the bill is actually presented to us.
I notice, however, that there are to be amendments to the Defence Services Pension Act which will deal with the succession duties. For a number of years past widows of servicemen who have contributed toward their pension have been faced, when the pensioner has died, with having to meet heavy succession duties. It has always been the hope of the regular forces of this country that it might have been possible to relieve the widows of the obligation to pay those succession duties.
The moneys which have been paid in by the members of the forces have been a contribution made over a great many years. This contribution has been made by the pensioner in the belief that his family would be secure when death overtook him. A matter of some ten or fifteen years ago a decision was made that pensions were to be subject to succession duties. This amendment does not relieve the widow of the obligation to pay those succession duties but it is a measure which makes their payments a little bit easier. When death overtakes the pensioner the widow is in a difficult and embarrassing position. While I should like to have seen the whole of the succession duties eliminated, nevertheless the fact that the period for payment of those succession duties is going to be extended over a number of years will help to tide the widow over that difficult time.
As to the other amendment, I do not think it is necessary to make much comment now except to say that I should like to get a little bit more information as to the relation of members of the House of Commons who are serving in the reserve forces of this country. By this amendment which is to be introduced do we understand that a member of the House of Commons, while carrying out his duties in the house, will also at the same time be able to carry out his duties in the reserve forces? Is this amendment now making it possible for a member of the House of Commons on the same day to draw pay for being in attendance in the House of Commons and also to draw pay for attending a parade or other training activities in the

reserve force? From what the minister said I imagine that the amendment introduced to the Senate and House of Commons Act is to make some such provision. As we have not the bill before us and as we do not know the details of the various amendments which are suggested, I think that further comment would be better delayed until the bill is presented to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words about the form in which this legislation is brought before us from year to year. In these remarks I follow along the lines used by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
We appreciate the fact that the position of the Minister of National Defence and of the Associate Minister of National Defence is that, from their point of view, it seems desirable to have all of the legislation that amends existing statutes with reference to defence matters within the confines of one statute or one volume, as time goes on. Without going into a great deal of detail on it, it seems to me that our point that confusion is going to arise is borne out by something that the Associate Minister of National Defence told us this evening. He told us that one of the statutes being amended by the bill to be based on this resolution is the Canadian Forces Act of 1950. However, the Canadian Forces Act of 1950 was one of those omnibus statutes that amended a number of other statutes in respect of defence matters. What is going to happen in 1956 or in 1960 if some of the statutes which were amended by the Canadian Forces Act of 1950 and were subsequently amended by the amendments in the Canadian Forces Act of 1954 which referred to the Canadian Forces Act of 1950 are in turn amended by sections in the Canadian Forces Act of 1956 or 1960?
I am stating the problem rather than solving it; but it seems to me that there is still something to be said, even despite the fact that it might take extra time, for the traditional practice of having individual bills amending the individual statutes which it is the desire of the government to amend. As I say, I recognize that to state the problem is to present the difficulty of doing it in some other way. But it is my fear-and I think that fear is borne out by what the minister has told us tonight-that it is going to get more complicated as time goes on and that, in the long run, this desire to avoid bringing several bills before the house will not be such a good idea.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to add my protest to those that have already been made
Canadian Forces Act
with regard to bringing in grab-bag bills of this nature. I think this same sort of thing has happened in the past three years with regard to bills brought in pertaining to national defence. The minister said this particular resolution concerned amendments to five acts. But if you read the resolution through and number the various specific matters dealt with, it will be found that they amount to eight. There are eight different matters altogether that are dealt with in this resolution.
This procedure places the members of the house in the situation of being faced with a resolution which deals with eight different matters. Naturally there are eight different principles involved under ordinary circumstances. As far as I can see from casual examination, most of these things are matters which perhaps everyone in the committee would agree with. When we hear more about them, that may not be so. In any event, it might very well be that amongst those eight amendments is one with which we would disagree violently and therefore feel called upon to vote against the resolution or particularly, after we have the bill and have the information, to vote against the bill because of that one matter. I think it is improper that members of the House of Commons should be placed in a position like that, where you have eight different matters dealt with in one bill, seven of which you might be prepared to accept and one of which you may be determined not to accept. As has just been indicated by the last speaker-I can never remember which Winnipeg he comes from-


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is only one Winnipeg.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I mean I cannot remember which division of Winnipeg he comes from.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In any event, as has just been indicated by him, it is the sort of thing that we should not have to be faced with. For example, one of the things I have heard mentioned in connection with this matter is that the dependents of service personnel who accompany such personnel overseas are going to be subject to the code of service discipline. That raises quite a large question and is not a matter which, in my opinion, should be dealt with along with a number of other things. Until I see the bill I am not in a position to express an opinion on it, but on the basis of the statement the minister has made I am inclined to think that is a pretty dangerous proposition to put into effect. Unless civilians are working directly with and for the army, I doubt very much

Canadian Forces Act
whether they should be placed under the code of military discipline. I think they should remain under the ordinary civilian discipline of their own country or possibly the country in which they happen to be.
I cite that as an example of the sort of thing which is to be found amongst other things which are highly desirable but which in itself may be highly undesirable. That is one of the features of the bill concerning which we shall certainly want considerably more information than we have at the present time before we, or at least I, would agree to it. I hesitate to agree to the resolution because of the statement the minister has made in connection with this matter.
As I said, we have had this sort of thing done in connection with national defence bills for the past two or three years, and I think this resolution is the worst example of grab-bag legislation since the transitional powers act shortly after the war which was generally known as the Heinz bill, the fifty-seven varieties bill. I think I can say that everyone on this side of the house raised strenuous complaints about the inclusion of fifty-odd matters in one bill, and as a general rule the government has not repeated that practice. They did not bring in further bills in which a large number of matters were grouped together with the exception of bills concerning national defence in the past two or three years. I think it would be very much better from the point of view of national defence and also the procedure of the house if that custom were abandoned and the government would return to introducing each matter as a separate bill which would stand or fall on its own merits rather than being carried along with other things or in some cases holding back the passage of other measures.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should like to make one or two observations in answer to what has been said. I would hasten to assure hon. members that the idea of bringing in one bill containing practically all matters affecting the Department of National Defence and the services is not at all arbitrary or unusual. It arises out of a fact which I believe has been stated before in the house, and to which the house in past years has agreed. It is a matter of convenience for the armed services. We now have units scattered throughout the length and breadth of Canada and in many other countries, as every hon. member knows, and it is not only convenient but indeed essential that the authorities in all these scattered units should have readily at their command all the statutory changes that have been made each year and which are cumulative upon one another.

It has proven extremely helpful not only from the point of view of administration but in acquainting members of the forces abroad and throughout Canada of any changes that have taken place which may affect them much more quickly, clearly and consecutively than any other way we know of. I should also like to observe that in the annual cumulative table of public statutes in the annual volume of statutes issued each year all these amendments, like any others, are thoroughly and clearly cross-indexed, so that I think that persons desiring to be informed as to amendments to specific acts have very little difficulty in finding them.
With respect to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to why we are seeking to amend a previous annual act, the reason for that is that the amendment, as he will find when the bill is brought down, does not affect any continuing statute. It refers to a specific matter which has to do with the special force in Korea. This amendment includes that matter, and rather than carry it through the principal statute and back out again it has been left in the form of an amendment to the annual act.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the associate minister give us a little more information about the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act with relation to time spent by members of the House of Commons on military service. We do not have very much information as to the intention of the amendment. Is it the intention to allow time spent on military service to count as time spent in the House of Commons, or is it not to count as time spent in the House of Commons?
I think the minister might give us a little more information on that point.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Without anticipating the specific terms of the bill, I think hon. members will remember that in the Senate and House of Commons Act as it now stands there is provision in respect of members of the reserve army on annual training. It is proposed to make the provision cover the reserves of the three services, the army, the navy and the air force, because for some reason the navy and the air force were never included in the act. That is probably by reason of the age of the existing section of the act. It is proposed to include reserves of all services with respect to any military activities upon which they may be legitimately engaged. It does not, I think, change the basic principle except probably to widen it a little, but it does bring in the other two services.


George Randolph Pearkes: 
Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, but the act as it now stands does not cover the reserve navy or the auxiliary air force with respect to annual training. In other words, strictly speaking, members of these services might be met with possible deductions from their sessional allowance. I think it is an inadvertence. I do not think it was ever intended that it should be that way, but that portion of the act which excuses such persons from having deductions made from their sessional allowance when engaged in training only mentions the army.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I understand the minister correctly, his contention was that passing eight matters concerning national defence in one act made it more convenient for the members of the armed services. Is that correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, not only in respect of administration but in acquainting members of the forces as to changes which have been made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From my personal experience in the armed services it seems to me that it would have exactly the reverse effect. When each of these eight separate matters covered by five acts gets into the hands of members of the armed services they will have to be related back to the particular sections of the act to which they apply. In other words, I think it would considerably complicate matters as far as members of the armed services are concerned rather than making things more simple. It would mean a great deal more difficulty with respect to making amendments in Q.R.O. or whatever document the particular branch of the armed services happened to be using. I cannot see that argument at all.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Campney thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No 80, respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS ACT


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend the Customs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, upon the introduction of this bill amending the Customs Act, on first reading, I gave a rather lengthy and comprehensive statement, which perhaps is not the usual custom. At that time I discussed the principle of the bill which, I understand, is usually discussed on the motion for second reading, with Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Customs Act
In view of the statement I made at that time, I have nothing further to add at this time on the principle of the bill.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, there are some aspects in the way in which this bill has been introduced with such urgency which are worthy of comment. I think all hon. members will be prepared to accord urgency to the matter under discussion. It is not without significance I am sure that there is no reference to this subject in the throne speech. No mention is made there of any intention on the part of the government to introduce amendments to the Customs Act. It is evident that the decision of the government to present this measure to the house must have been arrived at in very recent days.
As a matter of fact, sir, it was on November 16, when receiving delegations, representative not only of employers but also of textile labour organizations, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) indicated that the cabinet then had under consideration amendments to the Customs Act to deal with the subject of dumping.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the hon. member may I interrupt to state that if he will read the speech from the throne carefully he will see that this is stated clearly:
Other measures which will be placed before you for consideration include bills respecting the Canadian forces-
And then, after reciting a list of legislation, the following:
-the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act,-
And so on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the minister's correction on that. I had read it, and if it escaped my attention I am glad to have the minister point it out to me. Nevertheless I do recall the occasion to which I have just now made reference when, upon receiving delegations, the minister and his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that amendments to the Customs Act in relation to dumping were then under consideration.
Sir, in my submission there has been a great deal of delay and a great deal of denial on this subject which does not accord at all with the light in which the bill is now placed before us. There is a very strong contrast between the way in which the bill is now presented to us and the attitude indicated by the government on this subject in times past.
The minister has made reference to the statement he made to the house on December

Customs Act
7, just three days ago. As reported at page 673 he said, referring to section 35 of the Customs Act:
Section 35 provides the definition of value for duty required in carrying out these functions.
By and large this basis of appraisal of values for customs purposes has worked reasonably well. However,-
And I ask you to note these words.
-it has been found in practice that the section as it is now worded has not been fully adequate to deal with certain practices which in fact constitute a special kind of dumping.
It will occur to every member at once to ask when it was found, in practice, that the section as it is now worded was not completely adequate. Is this something that has just suddenly been discovered?
Again we find the minister saying, as reported at the top of page 674:
A number of cases have recently been brought to the attention of the government where the application of section 35 of the Customs Act has permitted the importation of manufactured goods into Canada at values which, while strictly speaking the same as those prevailing for the moment in the domestic market of the country of export, are nevertheless abnormally low.
Then he goes on by way of illustration to refer to a practice which, as he says, had been discovered recently. These are his words:
The flow of imports resulting from these conditions does not reflect the true competitive position of the Canadian industry concerned. In the textile industry, for example, as the season abroad advances or as inventories of some items accumulate, certain lines are closed out and placed on the market at prices substantially less than those previously effective. The importation of such goods into Canada at abnormally low prices may cause injury to Canadian industry which is not in any real sense related to its relative efficiency or productivity.
Note, if you will, that those words of the minister follow his statement that a number of cases have recently been brought to the attention of the government where the application of section 35 of the Customs Act has apparently not been adequate to meet the needs of the situation.
I am going to submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new situation. This is not something recently discovered. This is not a matter that rests upon certain cases which have recently come to the attention of the department. In my submission this is a practice that has been known for a long time. It has been a prevailing practice for a very long time; and in its present acute form it is not new either in nature or in acuteness. It is true that the situation has been developing by reason of the inaction of the government, until a situation has now been created where the industry to which the minister

made special reference-the textile industry -is suffering very acutely. But let no hon. member think that this is something that has just occurred overnight; it is something that has gone on for a long time. The minister has had his eyes closed and his arms folded while this situation developed.
He singled out the textile industry for special mention, but it is known that other industries are also acutely affected by dumping from the United States. One might mention the electrical goods and household appliances industry. Sir, one has only to thumb back over the pages of Hansard to see how often and how directly hon. members in this house, like the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), have raised this question and brought it directly to the attention of the minister. But we could not get any action out of the government. We could not get the government even to admit that there was a problem here in any form. Everything was beautiful!
Well, the government apparently at last has been persuaded that the situation has developed in an acute form, where the Canadian industry concerned is being submitted to conditions that are utterly unfair and which, as the minister says, permit a condition where "the importation of such goods into Canada at abnormally low prices may cause injury to Canadian industry which is not in any real sense related to its relative efficiency or productivity".
Sir, let us agree that we are not dealing with a situation traceable to any inefficiency or lack of productivity on the part of the Canadian industry. We are dealing, by the admission of the minister and the government, with a situation where Canadian industry is being unfairly submitted to abnormally low prices. I am suggesting, indeed I am urging it upon the house, Mr. Speaker, that now, after the situation has been allowed by the government to become so acute, we may be doing little more than locking the door after the horse has been stolen. But, sir, it is better late than never, and even at this late date we do welcome it.
We have not been given any recent figures from any government source, so far as I am aware, on the importation of textiles or electrical goods or household appliances from the United States. The last figures issued, so far as I am aware, are those for the first seven months of this calendar year, up to the end of July. They show that, as compared with the first seven months of 1952, there had been a very substantial increase in imports of textiles from the United States. The figures

for 1952 of fibres, textiles and textile products for the first seven months of the year were $109 million in round figures.


Mr. Croll:: Give us the source.


Donald Methuen Fleming: "Trade of Canada". In the first seven months of 1953 that figure had leaped to $126 million. Now, sir, one has not available, so far as I am aware, in any government publication the figures subsequent to July 31, 1953, but it must be evident to all hon. members, in view of the fact that the government has at last acted on this problem, that the figures for the later months of 1953 on importation of textiles from the United States must have shown a continuing increase over the 1952 figures. I hope when we go into committee the minister will be able to furnish us with figures on importations for this present year that will bring us up to date, or reasonably up to date.
Sir, I do not need, I am sure, to dwell in this house on the importance of the textile industry to Canada. That has been emphasized with feeling and with eloquence in this house not only in past sessions but in recent days by hon. members on both sides of the house, speaking with great knowledge of the textile industry, particularly as it affects employment and prosperity in their own ridings.
The textile industry is a very large employer of labour, and today there exist in that industry acute conditions of unemployment and operations on short time. The Canadian textile industry has been almost exclusively a manufacturer for home consumption. It is not an export industry; but, apart from certain very large industries, there are scattered throughout many communities in Canada a large number of relatively small plants engaged in the manufacture of textiles, and those plants are of great importance to their local communities.
Sir, dumping is an obvious and existing fact. Whence does it come? It comes, sir, from the United States. No one, so far as I am aware, has contended that there has been any dumping from United Kingdom sources. The United Kingdom and the United States are our principal sources of textile imports. It is not therefore to be inferred that this bill is going to affect in any way our imports from the United Kingdom.
The relationship of this bill to GATT would naturally cause all hon. members to examine it closely. I am sure it is the desire of all hon. members that Canada should scrupulously honour all her obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. We 83276-51
Customs Act
do not wish to copy the example, the unfortunate and lamentable example, of the United States congress in violating not only the spirit but also the letter of GATT.
This measure, as we are assured by the government, is not a retaliatory measure. As the minister has clearly pointed out at page 674 of Hansard, the general agreement on tariffs and trade specifically contemplates that any member may take measures of this kind to meet conditions of the kind that this bill is intended to meet. He said:
I should make it clear to the house that the proposed amendment is fully consistent with our international obligations. Our trade agreements including GATT recognize the right to deal with dumping. Indeed, if there were no provisions to deal with undervaluation it would not have been possible to make the progress we have made in reducing tariff rates and other barriers to trade.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let us assure ourselves and let us assure Canada that in proceeding along the lines proposed in this bill we are proceeding strictly in harmony with both the letter and the spirit of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Sir, what is the principle of the bill, brief as it is? As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is to strengthen the Customs Act to prevent dumping. Sir, if that be its principle, then I hope that the house will find itself in a position to give endorsation to it notwithstanding its very manifest inadequacies and imperfections.
Is something of this kind necessary? Is the present law so weak that it requires strengthening? Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to review the subject in too great detail. The minister himself made a lengthy statement on this matter in the house on March 12, 1952. The law on this matter is to be found in section 35 of the Customs Act and in section 6 of the Customs Tariff Act. The combined effect of these two sections is to give power to the department to place valuations-call them arbitrary if you wish- in accordance with the provisions laid down in these two acts, where the invoice price of goods imported into Canada represents such a low price as, speaking broadly, will impose upon Canadian producers unfair competition.
If hon. members were to examine the provisions of section 35 I am sure it would strike many of them as a little difficult to understand why these provisions are not adequate. For instance, we have in section 35, subsection 1, the provision that:
Whenever any duty ad valorem is imposed on any goods imported into Canada, the value for duty shall be the fair market value of such or the like goods when sold for home consumption in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions, in like quantities and under comparable conditions of sale at the time when and place whence such goods were exported by the

Customs Act
vendor abroad to the purchaser in Canada; or, except as otherwise provided in this act, the price at which the goods were sold by the vendor abroad to the purchaser in Canada, exclusive of all charges thereon after their shipment from the place whence exported direct to Canada, whichever may be greater.
I do not intend to review all the provisions of this act. The key note of section 35 is in subsection 1, which I have just read. But there are further provisions that deal with other cases, and I think the house might well bear in mind the provisions of subsection 3:
When neither the fair market value nor the equivalent of such value can be ascertained, the value for duty shall be the actual cost of production of similar goods at date of shipment to Canada, plus a reasonable addition for administration, selling cost and profit.
It will occur to hon. members at once that as long as you have the provisions of subsection 3, which means in effect that in the cases in which they place a value it shall not be less than the cost of production plus a reasonable addition for administration and selling cost and profit, that should provide adequate protection for the Canadian manufacturer against this unfair practice of dumping. But unfortunately the law has not been so interpreted.
In his statement to the house on March 12, 1952, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) referred to a ruling of the Department of Justice which I think will strike many hon. members, without a more detailed examination of the law, as an interpretation which greatly weakens the effect of section 35. This is what the minister said, as reported on page 359 of Hansard of March 12, 1952:
The question as to the meaning of the word "fair" in the phrase "fair market value" which appears in section 35 (1) of the Customs Act, and section 6 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, has been considered. There is an understandable feeling that to be "fair" a "fair market value" should represent at least the cost of production of the goods with a reasonable addition for administrative expense, selling cost and profit. In the opinion of the Department of Justice, to whom this question was referred, a "fair market value" may bear no necessary relationship to production cost. A market value which is consistent, and not the result of temporary panic selling under extraordinary circumstances, may be a "fair market value" within the meaning of sections 35(1) and 6(1), although such value may be less than production cost.
That was the opinion given by the Department of Justice. The law as thus interpreted amounted to this: It was perfectly lawful for United States manufacturers to ship goods into Canada at invoice prices which could be very substantially below the cost of production, plus a reasonable addition for administration and selling cost and profit. When was this ruling by the Department of Justice

made? The minister did not indicate when it was made but we know it must have been at least prior to March 12, 1952. That was twenty-one months ago. Why has nothing been done in all this period? It was not that the government lacked a majority. It was not that there was a lack of eloquent voices raised in this house to point out the need for taking measures to curb the dumping of United States textiles in Canada, because many protests were made. But even in the face of that ruling by the Department of Justice, which left the law of this country in the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act in a very weak condition, the government took no step whatever to meet the situation.
The government knew about it because in the very next paragraph of that speech made by the minister on March 12, 1952, he went on to describe the situation which the government now says it is introducing this bill to meet. Therefore there is no question that the situation was known, but it simply has been allowed by the government to deteriorate. The minister went on again, as reported at page 359 of Hansard of March 12, 1952, to say:
It is a regular trade practice, both in the United States and in Canada, in respect to some seasonal goods, such as ladies' dresses, to reduce prices in the domestic market as the season advances, and they may be less than production cost. In the opinion of the Department of Justice, these low prices, when an ordinary trade practice and granted generally in the domestic market of the exporter, represent a "fair market value". A difficulty arises from the earlier season in the United States than in Canada due to the difference in climatic conditions. The reduced prices in the latter part of the season in the United States become generally effective in that market at a time and during the period in which the early season prices of Canadian produced goods would still obtain if not affected by competitive imports from United States sources.
There is no change in the relative climate of Canada and the United States. The practice which the minister recognized as a well-established practice, flowing in part from the fact that the United States climate is in advance of ours and their selling seasons accordingly, existed on March 12, 1952. There is the minister's recognition of the fact.
The situation which the minister described in introducing this bill when he made a statement on December 7 is precisely the same situation. On that date the minister said, as reported on page 674 of Hansard:
The flow of imports resulting from these conditions-
Those are the same conditions he described in the words I quoted from his speech of 1952. -does not reflect the true competitive position of the Canadian industry concerned.

Then further on he says:
This revision of the law is designed to help meet the difficulties arising from end of season and end of line imports which are dumped into Canada at abnormally low prices.
On March 12,	1952, the minister was
describing precisely the same situation, namely, difficulties arising from end-of-season and end-of-line imports which are dumped into Canada at abnormally low prices. But twenty-one precious months have been allowed to pass while the government has sat, as in so many other cases, with arms folded. It is a well-known fact that in construing these provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act, if an American exporter could show invoices indicating sales made in the United States of the same type of goods at the price at which he was selling into Canada, then in the view of the department and in the light of that ruling of the Department of Justice there was no room for the application of dumping duties. It did not matter that the sales in the United States indicated in those invoices were end-of-season or end-of-line sales below cost of production. As long as there was invoiced proof of sales in the United States of similar goods at the same price, then the position in which the department found itself, and has found itself all this time, was that there was no room for invoking these provisions of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act.
Is it desirable that we should narrow our consideration of this dumping problem simply to end-of-line and end-of-season sales of goods? There are other cases existing in the country to the south where industries are prepared to operate at a loss. In other words, they are prepared to sell their production during a certain part of the year, not necessarily the end of the season in the strict sense of the word or end-of-line sales, but in order to keep their organization intact and to remain in operation. Do we have to take such a restricted view of this matter as to limit us to conditions arising from abnormally low prices as a result of the advance of the season or of the marketing period?
Why should our view of this matter and the attempt to redress it be so limited? Why should it not apply generally where the market value of goods in the country of export has declined to levels that do not reflect normal prices? I am quite sure that if our approach to this matter is to be confined to the two lines proposed by the minister there will be astute minds that will endeavour to find legal ways to put themselves beyond the scope of this present 83276-511
Customs Act
amendment. I think we will be proceeding much more wisely if we do not try to narrow or restrict our approach to this question.
There is another aspect of this matter that is deserving of consideration. Section 35 of the Customs Act applies to goods, goods that is to say of all kinds. The definition of goods in the Customs Act is a very broad definition, and let the house observe, Mr. Speaker, that this particular amendment does not apply to goods in general. It is confined in its application to manufactured goods.
A question was asked of the minister in this house by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) on December 8, as to the scope of the measure. He asked, as recorded at page 693 of Hansard:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. How far does the minister consider that the anti-dumping instructions given to customs officials yesterday can be effectively applied to industries other than the textile industry, which he mentioned, and also to other production including agricultural production?
The minister for some reason or other confined his answer to industrial production, in other words, manufactured goods. If you scrutinize his answer to that question you will find the second part of the question was not answered.


James Joseph McCann: Seasonal goods such as fruit and vegetables are taken care of under the act. I thought the hon. member would know that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would have thought the minister would know enough to realize that if the act needs strengthening with respect to manufactured goods, then it can stand similar strengthening with respect to the kind of goods we are referring to, namely agricultural products. A similar situation obtains, Mr. Speaker. The minister does not need to indulge in his caustic comments on a matter of this kind. He would be doing a better service to the house if he would examine the weaknesses in this legislation with a view to doing justice to all.
Now, it is quite obvious that the textile industry today, and other industries as well, because the minister contemplates other industries, as his answer on this occasion shows, are facing unfair competition, reflected in abnormal prices at which goods are being brought into Canada, but a similar situation has been faced by agricultural producers, particularly our vegetable and fruit growers. If the minister had the temerity to stand up in this house now, which I doubt very much, and if he was willing to say there was no dumping of fruit and vegetables in Canada at any particular season of the year, and had the temerity to raise such an argument, I say it would still be desirable to strengthen the act.

Customs Act


Mr. Lennard:: Tomato pulp from Italy.


Mr. Wood:: Tariff war.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no question of tariff involved here. The minister recognized this on previous occasions. We are discussing the question of dumping and before hon. members who support the government become too free with their comments, such as the one I just heard sotto voce behind me, I think it would be well to recall that this is a government measure and that the government is now asking the house to deal with dumping.
The minister in a statement twenty-one months ago recognized that dumping existed then. If measures can be taken now, why were they not taken then? Why was the situation not dealt with earlier, and why was this measure not applied in March, 1952?


An hon. Member:: Asking us to become
protectionists now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What ought the house to
look for in reference to legislation of this kind and what are the tests that should be applied to legislation of this nature? I suggest that legislation of this kind in the first place should be clear in its meaning. That should be the first rule of draftsmanship of statutes of this kind. We might approve the principle of this measure if that principle be as I stated broadly, namely, to strengthen the customs legislation to prevent this unfair dumping. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think any hon. member of this house looking at this measure will be bound to say that this measure is far from clear in its meaning.
It is so important, Mr. Speaker, in a measure like this, which is going to be interpreted in ports of entry from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that it should be so clear that those charged with its interpretation in those local ports will be able to give uniform rulings and also will be able to give rulings with reasonable speed. I doubt very much if this legislation is clear enough to permit those interpreting it to give uniform rulings and to give them with proper speed.
In the second place, I submit that legislation of this kind ought to be realistic. It ought to take account of the whole problem, not part of it. No doubt when we go into comrriittee of the whole and have an opportunity to examine the language of the bill in greater detail, there will be an opportunity there to consider some of the inadequacies of this measure in that respect.
In the third place, I submit that in approving and passing legislation of this kind we should make certain that it is as simple as possible in its application. We do not wish, if we can avoid it in Canada, the kind of situation that exists in the United States

which has bedevilled many Canadian producers trying to find their way into U.S. markets and finding in the process that they must hurdle a mass of obstacles and a great variety of customs rulings at different ports of entry into the United States.
It has been necessary for the United States congress to address itself to the problem of simplification of procedures simply because of the way in which customs rulings have been heaped upon one another in this great variety. We do not wish to see that duplicated in Canada, and I hope the house will try, before this legislation leaves the committee of the whole, to simplify its terms with a view to simplification of its application.
The effect of obscurity in legislation of this kind would be very detrimental not only to United States exporters but to Canadian importers. Delay is bound to result from obscurity of language. I do not think that point, Mr. Speaker, requires to be laboured. Surely it is not in the interests of anyone, and no one likes to encourage a large number of rulings, particularly when the nature of the legislation is such that there can be a wide variety in the rulings, and some of them will probably be very obscure. Delays will undoubtedly arise because of the effect of these rulings in many cases, because these goods are going to be coming in here and under the provisions of this bill it may not be possible to determine for months what is the value that is going to be placed on these goods for customs purposes.
The bill contemplates a review of sales in the country of origin over a period not exceeding six months. That could mean in certain circumstances that the value for entry purposes would not be established by the department in some cases for months after entry. It is going to mean a lot of bookkeeping as well as a great deal of reviewing of bookkeeping on the part of the department.
The minister has admitted the obscurity of the language of this bill. He has, I think, admitted that it involves arbitrary rulings. In fact, the minister spoke with extraordinary frankness when in the same speech to which I referred earlier, on March 12, 1952, he said, as recorded at page 360 of Hansard:
I admit frankly that I do not know what the solution of the problem is.
Well, he admitted at least, Mr. Speaker, that there was a problem and he admitted that he did not know what the solution was, and so he did nothing; and twenty-one months, valuable months, have passed since that time when the problem was recognized in its gravity, but the government did not

know what the solution was. Now, the minister said in the following paragraphs that there were two possible solutions, two possible approaches. One was to raise the tariff; and he recognized that no one is proposing that procedure. No one is proposing that procedure in this house today. The other one was procedure by way of arbitrary rulings. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that what we have in this bill is what the minister contemplated as the second approach. I think we shall wish to hear more on that score when we go into committee of the whole.
My final point is this. What of the administration of this amendment if and when it becomes law? If it does become law and if it is put forward as the means by which this unfair dumping of United States manufactured goods into Canada is to be curtailed, the house will wish to be assured, in the first place, that the measure is going to be applied forthwith. The other day the minister was asked about the means of enforcement, and on December 8, as recorded at page 693 of Hansard, he said:
. . . we have special investigators who are trained in particular lines of industry, and who make these investigations in the country of export.
The minister might also have said that prior to the war there were more of these investigators in the United States than there have been since. The problem did not seriously exist during the war. All production was required and the problem of dumping was not acute during the war. Therefore the government saw fit then to reduce the number of investigators maintained in the United States. But the minister might well have told the house that as yet the government has not since the war sufficiently increased the number of investigators of the department in the United States to cope with the problem they are going to be faced with if this measure becomes law.
For some reason or other the minister has refrained from giving the house any assurance that the administrative necessities of this measure are going to be met. Indeed, the only thing I have been able to find on the subject was a reference to it in the Financial Post, which ascribed to the government an absence of intention to increase at present the number of investigators engaged, on behalf of the department, in the United States in investigating the cost of production and marketing of manufactured goods in the United States. There is not much use in our enacting a measure of this kind in the brave hope that it is going to put an end to this
Customs Act
unfair dumping if there is not going to be a serious attempt made to enforce this law effectively.
If the principle of the measure be as I have broadly stated it, then of course we will approve it. But we have a great deal to say by way of criticism of this measure and its terms, for which there will be a more convenient opportunity in committee of the whole. Whatever good there is in the measure comes at least twenty-one months late, by the admission of the government. In that time how much damage may have been done to important segments of the Canadian economy by reason of the fact that this government, with full knowledge of the serious problem, has been content to let time run by, month after month, while it sat with its eyes shut and its arms folded!


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this measure is intended to prevent unfair trade practices we of course support it. We realize that at the present time great pressure is being brought on members of the house, particularly by working men and women who are feeling the impact of the present conditions, to do something to prevent unfair practices and the onset of difficulties for them. With that point of view we have every sympathy and we are prepared to go along with other members of the house in endeavouring to do everything we can to rectify such a situation. But I want to say this clearly to the house and to the minister.
Apart from the industries involved there are the consumers of this country to be considered. We cannot overlook the consuming public. The working people themselves who are involved in this situation, because of other unfair trade practices, are themselves the victims of high prices and must be considered in relation to these problems. Without knowing what the situation actually is and without a thorough inquiry into the matter, it is with great hesitation that I support anything which tends to give more protection to certain industries in this country. I say that particularly of the textile industry. There is no industry in Canada-and I am not now talking of the workers who have been exploited by that industry to an even greater extent perhaps than have the consumers of this country-which in regard to its workers and in regard to the consumers of this country has a blacker record than has the textile industry.
You can look up the pages of Hansard, and you can look up the records of investigation after investigation. There you will find



Customs Act
established the fact that I have just mentioned. Indeed, I was a member of this House of Commons in 1936 when there was an investigation into this textile industry which stemmed right back to the end of the first world war. It was shown that the textile companies at that time had made enormous profits, had watered their stock and had paid dividends on that watered stock ranging to over 150 per cent. If we come up to the depression period, it was about the only industry in Canada which, during the whole of that time, paid rock bottom wages of less than ten cents an hour to workers at Valleyfield, the workers in the Dominion textile factories, and at the same time it made the highest dividends of any manufacturing organization in Canada. Why do I say that? Because that was established by the royal commission in 1936. Indeed, one of the strongest statements ever made in Canada regarding an industry was made by Mr. J. C. McRuer, the present Chief Justice of the province of Ontario, when, before the royal commission on the textile industry, he said this:
A shameful, sickening story of heartless exploitation and wholesale robbery by men prominent in the public life of Canada. Inordinate greed, barefaced lying and criminal fraud characterize the careers of this gang of high-class crooks.
Those are not my words. Those are the words of Chief Justice J. C. McRuer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member not elaborating more than necessary for the purpose of his argument?
Mr. Cold well: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting from a statement made, before a royal commission set up by this house, by the counsel employed by the government of that day and who today happens to be the Chief Justice of the province of Ontario. In discussing the granting of what may be, in effect, a measure of further protection to this industry, I maintain that I am entitled to say what was the opinion of prominent people in this country with regard to the operation of those who controlled that industry at that time. I say that with all due respect, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: That was not precisely my point. From the hon. gentleman's remarks I gathered that he contended this was a measure to protect the textile industry to a certain extent; and in his argument, following certain statements that he was quoting, he went on to say that he doubted whether this industry should enjoy these additional benefits, or something to that effect. That was his line of argument.


Major James William Coldwell: No. If you will allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I shall develop the argument from this point. Why have I said this? Because I want to impress upon the minister and the government that in the carrying out of this particular legislation every care should be exercised to see that the working people who are suffering from the present conditions receive any benefit and consideration that the minister and the government can give, but that the public generally must be protected against the industrialists who have exploited the people of Canada and the workers of Canada through this industry in days gone by. That was the point I was making, and I think it is a very valid one.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right that it is a very valid point, but if he should carry on much further in developing his auxiliary argument, if I may call it that, to the effect that the textile industry is one which has been considered in the past to have exploited its own workers, then I can see that some other hon. members who might disagree with that statement might start a debate in rebuttal of the hon. member and go on to say that the textile industry is one that has given employment to many workers and has paid proper wages. We would be getting away from the amendment which is before us. That is the only reason why I asked the hon. member if, although he was making these remarks for the purpose of his argument, he was not perhaps going to cut them short.


Major James William Coldwell: I submit very respectfully that if my argument provokes an argument on the opposite side that does not make my argument out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: It does not make the hon. member's argument out of order but it might institute a debate which would be out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: If I may say so with deep respect, Your Honour, I take it that the time when a person who is out of order is called to order is when the debate becomes out of order. That is the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to add that it is the duty of the Speaker to interpose whenever he feels that a situation may develop which will create disorder. That is precisely why I intervened. I was not going to ask the hon. member not to develop his argument, but if an hon. member commences a speech on an amendment to the Customs Act and then wants to speak for thirty-five of his forty minutes on the exploitation of the workers by a certain industry he gets completely outside the subject.


Major James William Coldwell: I am going to accept your ruling. However, I think it is rather difficult for anybody to anticipate in advance what a ruling would be, and I think that up to the present time at least I have not been out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a ruling.


Major James William Coldwell: What I want to say is that so far as this and other industries that may come under this particular bill are concerned, every care must be exercised to see to it that the legislation is not used against the interests of the consuming public of the country. While unduly low prices have undoubtedly been caused in some instances, let me point out on the matter of dumping that I have had the opportunity of looking into and comparing prices in our two countries. I will give a concrete example. During the months of September and October I was in the United States. I keep my eyes open and look around when I am there to see what price levels are. I saw, for example, that Pepperell coloured sheets, a textile, 130 threads to the square inch, could be bought in the United States for $4 a pair. I am talking now about normal stores. I saw that coloured Pepperell pillow cases, 130 threads to the square inch, could be bought for $1.50 a pair.
A few days ago I was in a local store not very far from where I stand tonight, and I saw on the counter what I thought to be the identical sheeting. Actually it was slightly better quality, 180 threads to the square inch. What was their price? They were marked at $16 a pair. When the saleslady asked me if I should like to buy a pair I said no because, I said, I had seen sheets of slightly lower quality in the United States the other day that I could have bought for $4 a pair.
The government has to be careful in administering this act that it does not encourage that kind of exploitation of the Canadian people. There are other industries to which the same thing applies. Those of us who have gone to the United States and have gone into the regular stores-I am not talking about discount houses and that kind of thing-have seen the prices of television sets, radio sets and electrical equipment of almost every description. We know perfectly well that such things are not being sold in Canada at lower prices than in the United States but at very much higher prices and labour receives much less.
Therefore I say to the government that while we will support the elimination of unfair trade practices, while we will support any enactment to prevent United States or any other manufacturers dumping goods into this country at a loss to themselves or, as the
Customs Act
minister said, end of the season goods after they have taken their profit, I warn the government that we will not support the administration of an act of this description in such a way as to give shelter to people who would exploit the consumers of Canada.
Again let me come back to the textile industry in particular so far as dumping is concerned. A few moments ago the hon. member for Eglinton spoke with great warmth against any possibility of this legislation being used to interfere with British imports into this country on a legitimate basis. I remember that the government adopted the Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade and put it into effect on the 1st day of January. There was an escape clause which allowed us to delay the putting into effect of that agreement for a year but we took no advantage of it. Notwithstanding that fact, at the end of June of that year what happened? Out went the preferential tariff that Britain had received during wartime and up went the tariff against British textiles. Why? To protect our textile industry. There was no dumping, but what was the effect of that move? We prevented the United Kingdom from earning dollars here through her textile exports with the result that she had fewer dollars with which to buy our agricultural products, with which to buy Nova Scotia apples, Ontario cheese, maritime codfish, British Columbia salmon and so on and so forth.
Therefore I say that in dealing with legislation of this description we must be very careful that we are not buying something that may react against us. I hope that the minister will exercise every care and that he himself will exercise the authority under the act and not depute it to people several grades below him, because therein lies one of the real dangers. I say that we want to do everything we possibly can to protect those who suffer from unfair competition, particularly those who work in these industries; nonetheless we are very fearful lest this legislation be used against the consuming public of Canada.
True, we have a duty to the people who work in these industries, but I do not think we have any duty to those who have built up a heavy load of watered capital on which they want to pay high dividends. I do not think that at all. I do think we have a duty to do what we can to help those who suffer from unfair trade practices and unfair competition, if you will, but at the same time we have a duty towards the consuming public of this country.
A point was made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) which I too would like to make. This measure deals only with

Customs Act
manufactured goods. If we are going to stop the dumping of manufactured goods, then by the same token we should have something to say about the dumping of fruits, and of other things that could be considered end-of-season products. While I am prepared to accept this as an emergency measure, I think there should have been in it not only the date of coming into force but a provision that it should remain in force for perhaps six months or a year, with the opportunity to have it reviewed by this House of Commons at the end of that time.
I do not like to see a measure of this description placed on the statute books to remain there until the question is raised in the house, and hence it comes before us for reconsideration. I think legislation of this description should be reviewed automatically at certain periods of time-perhaps six months or not more than a year, as the case may be.
There was one other thing I was going to say when Mr. Speaker intervened. While I criticize certain of the textile industries, particularly Dominion Textiles and Montreal Cottons, I would have it clearly understood that there are good employers in the textile industry. Many of those good employers are found in the smaller places throughout Canada. I would not have it understood that I was criticizing every one of them, because that would be most unfair on my part. But I have read the record, and I was here in 1936; so I know something about the background. And I am fearful that unless the minister has plenty of backbone-and I think perhaps he has-he will be up against tremendous pressure from highly protectionist interests in this country.
While this bill is designed to protect our people from unfair practices and from the dumping of end-of-season goods from the United States, every care and every vigilance will have to be exercised by the minister himself, or the consumers in this country will suffer once again, as they have done in the past. And that is exactly what I wished to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments which have been advanced by speakers who have preceded me in the debate on this bill. I do think however it is necessary for me to say a few things; and if during the course of the few moments in which I speak I repeat one or two of the points made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon.
FMr. Cold-well.]
member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) it will be only for emphasis rather than through any wish to thresh old straw.
The introduction of this bill does bring to my mind the necessity for saying to the Liberal party something that I think should have been said a long time ago. I think it is about time the Liberal party became honest with the people of Canada and told them just exactly where it stands with respect to trade.
For a long time I have been listening to Liberal campaigners and Liberal speakers going up and down the country declaring to the people that they are free traders, that they are the free trade party. And they have got the people of Canada believing that they really mean free trade-"Just give the Liberals a mandate and they will go in and wipe out every tariff, every customs duty, and make it possible for us to bring things into this country willy-nilly with no restrictions whatsoever".
Well, you cannot blame the people for believing, because that is the way Liberal speakers have taught them. This is an example of the kind of thing which gives the lie to that kind of propaganda, because the government has brought in here a measure designed to protect certain industries in Canada against unfair practices on the part of other nations. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time the Liberal party, as I said before, came right out honestly and told the people where they stand with respect to trade and protection.
The hon. member for Eglinton made a good case; and one of the important parts of his case was that the emergency which the minister spoke about as being the inducement or the need for this bill has not been an emergency that developed just recently. It has been one that has been growing for months- perhaps for years. And I believe that. I believe the Liberal government has been given to inertia. They have had rocks tied to their feet. And I will tell you why: simply because they did not dare move for fear they would give the lie to the propaganda that they have been peddling all over this country, about being free traders and not protectionists. And any time a party is given to that kind of inertia it will let some of our industries in this country slump into a very bad condition.
As I say, it is about time the Liberal party adopted a specific and well-defined policy with respect to protection, so that the people of Canada will know about it-instead of peddling the propaganda they have been peddling.

Now, with that off my chest there is something I would like to say in support of the principle of the bill. It is quite clear to everybody that there is a loophole-maybe there are several loopholes-in section 35 of the Customs Act. It has already been pointed out that not only the textile industry suffers in this country. There probably are others, including the agricultural producers in several sections of the country-the producers of small fruits in southern Ontario and southern British Columbia, the vegetable producers in British Columbia and in some parts of the maritimes. These people are suffering from end-of-season dumping and should be given protection, just as well as the textile people.
If anyone will examine the record as to tariffs he will find that there is hardly a single thing we produce in the Dominion of Canada that is not protected by this government-hardly a single thing. They do play favourites when they bring in a bill of this kind. Instead of giving the vegetable and fruit producers some protection, they concentrate on one group-and on that, to the exclusion of all others.
I do support the principle of the bill because, regardless of the quality of some of the producers of textiles to whom my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar referred, if we are going to have a textile industry in Canada, and if it is going to be of any value to the country, it will have to be protected. We might as well face it. What we have got to decide is whether we want the textile industry here. We also have to broaden our minds about it and decide whether we are going to have several other industries in this country which are struggling-one of which is the sugar industry, and some others I have mentioned.
There is a whole string of them, and we have to make a decision. I do not uphold the exploitation of labour, of the working people or the consumers in this country by any group of manufacturers. I have no brief for the textile people about whom the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke. But I do say we have to make up our minds, and make them up soon, as to whether we are going to try to have a textile industry in this country. If so, let us be realistic about it and lay down some policies which are in harmony with the facts of the present situation. I support the principle of the bill, but when it goes into committee, if someone does not beat me to it, I am going to propose some amendments, because I think the thing should be broadened to include some other things that need looking after in this country.
Customs Act


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: In rising to make a few remarks on this bill I want to say at the outset that in my own county there is a very fine branch of the textile industry, and I agree with the greater part of what has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The industry that we have means much to the economy of Charlotte county, since we have very few industries there. In so far as dumping is concerned, they have my sympathy and my support, but there are a few things that I myself would like to see cleared up.
Men to whom I have talked, who are engaged in that particular industry, speak of dumping, but the word "dumping" has never yet been defined to my satisfaction. I am informed that that portion of textiles which are manufactured in the United States and sold to the retail market are sold at what they consider in this country to be a fair market value. We must all acknowledge that in the United States wages are as high as or higher than they are in Canada. If these materials that are sold to the retail trade in the United States by that industry are sold at a fair market value, why is the retail price charged in this country from 30 per cent to 50 per cent higher than it is south of the border? That is one thing that I have never had explained to me.
Since it is being sold at a fair market value in the United States, what sort of value would you place on the charges that are being made to the retail trade in this country? These are the things that I would like to understand-and remember there is a branch of that industry in my own county. But I believe that the consuming public certainly must have a little consideration.
I am going to make a statement now that I know to be correct. We have in this country a customs regulation which allows a citizen of Canada to go over the United States border and to stay there for 48 hours, to make a purchase and bring it home duty-free. I am going to be bold enough to say that two-thirds of those engaged in the textile industry, who take advantage of that 48-hour period over the border, bring back the very things that they are manufacturing in Canada. I know that happens down where I live. If my wife goes over the border down to Bangor, Maine, or somewhere near the border, and stays there for 48 hours, I know what she brings back. She brings back textiles.
Tonight the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned sheets and pillow cases. The figures he put on the record are correct. There is no question about that. You can

Customs Act
buy sheets and pillow cases across the border for about 50 per cent of what we are obliged to pay for them here in Canada.
I wonder just how we will get a definition of this word "dumping" that can be applied fairly. That is my chief worry. I believe, as I said before, that the consumers in this country of ours have to be given some consideration. I want to give you one example, and it is an experience that I have had in my own lifetime. For a great many years I was engaged in the fishing industry, and we used tons and tons of spikes and nails in the building of sardine weirs. These materials came in from the United States for fishing purposes free of duty. I would go to Eastport, Maine, just across the border from where I live and I could buy spikes and nails manufactured by James Pender in Saint John, New Brunswick, for from 25 per cent to 30 per cent cheaper than I could buy them in my own town. I was told that these nails and spikes were dumped on the United States market, but I have never been convinced that that story was correct. I believed that the people of this country were being overcharged by 25 per cent, and I have always had the same belief.
When he spoke tonight the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said that this condition had been known to this government for twenty-one months-I believe my figures are correct-and the government had never taken any action. I wondered whether the hon. member for Eglinton had any idea of the exploitation that had been going on in this country, by the rubber manufacturers, the steel and cable manufacturers and others. I never heard him bring that to the attention of this government in the eight or nine years that I have been here. I brought it to their attention on different occasions because I felt there was a monopoly there; I was sure there was a monopoly there and the disclosures which have come to light within the last few weeks would certainly suggest that there was something wrong.
I believe that the people employed in this industry must have some consideration, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said. It is their bread and butter. I would not want to see one of those employed in the industry harmed in any way in this world; but in order to protect them do we have to protect the monopoly? That is my worry.
I have said on the floor of this house on many occasions that this country of ours was overrun with monopolies and combines. I am still of that opinion. It will take some time before an investigation can be made
IMr. Stuart (Charlotte).]
in each and every case, but I am unable to find a single case that has been examined carefully where we have not found that a great deal of wrong has taken place and that the people of this country have been exploited. The prices that they have paid over the years have been unreasonable, particularly when they are compared with the prices that our friends on the other side of the border are paying.
I am prepared to support this regulation in so far as dumping is concerned. I do not believe that anything should be dumped in this country. When we have citizens of our own producing the same thing I believe they should have a fair break; but if this amendment will in any way assist companies which might be of a monopolistic character I would hesitate before I gave my support.
Once more, before I sit down, I want to say that in this country of ours there are a great many more consumers than there are manufacturers. It is nearly time that the consumers received some little attention. I feel that if we are to go into this matter it should be dealt with very carefully, as I said a few moments ago. The minister has a big job here. I believe that all sorts of pressure will be brought to bear on him for protection for other industries. Therefore I suggest that we move carefully. It might be well to investigate some of the industries that are complaining at the present time to find out if their trouble today is in the dumping of goods from other countries or in our own country where our prices are pricing them out of the market. I believe that before we shall have a sound and stable economy in this country our prices must compare in some ways with those to the south of us.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: It is
interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear a debate like this; it creates a peculiar spectacle for one who has to listen to the arguments of those who want to protect the consumer on the one hand and to investigate the monopolies of the producers on the other, more particularly when it comes from hon. members to your right who have been demanding lower tariffs for years, and now propose to inaugurate a new protectionist policy. One cannot help thinking that there are, to say the least, inconsistencies in the arguments.
I wonder who the consuming public are. Are they not the people who are earning money? If they are not earning money, where are they getting the money to be able to consume? Who are these consumers you are worried about? Are they the farmers

in the back concession lines who are working long hours for a fraction of the money that the men in the textile trade, whom you are putting out of business, have been getting? Who are the consuming public?
I have sat in on many important labour negotiations and have provided and granted more money in fringe benefits than 50 per cent of the farmers of Canada are now receiving for all their wages.
Who are the consuming public? I am delighted to find that the Minister of National Revenue is shocked and concerned for his friends in the Ottawa valley. I am delighted that those manufacturers in the Ottawa valley have shocked him after the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) and others have warned of this spectacle coming to light for the past two or three years. I am glad that at least he has stopped, looked and listened to what hon. members on this side have said for the last two or three years.
Oh, how it amuses me to see the squirm-ings, the twistings and the juggling of those supposed free traders who for years could not see anything virtuous in the policy announced by my hon. leader, who says that we must develop our own resources, in our own country for our own countrymen! In the language of the street corner, the chickens are coming home to roost.
I hear hon. members pleading for the consumer. I am sorry for those consumers who have to get their goods at low cost, whether they wish to work or not. We have baby bonuses and old age pensions. No matter how they get their money. Certainly let us support the consumers, because, as my hon. friend has just said, we are politicians and there are more of them than there are producers. Do not let us fool ourselves. Just as we approach difficult times we will approach these realities of life itself. There is nothing on a silver platter for anyone; you will not get anything and deserve anything that you do not more or less earn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My friends laugh and apparently some of them do not understand that.


An hon. Member:: There was a good joke
down here, that is all.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad you gentlemen can
joke; I am glad you have a sense of humour because you need all that. I sometimes wonder why these people are so concerned. We are all concerned over the labouring man. He is the heart and soul of Canada. There is no one more sympathetic toward labour than I am. I take second place to no one in this house in mv concern for labour. In 83276-52i
Customs Act
fact I have suffered political defeat because of my concern for labour. I have faced embarrassment in industry because of my concern for labour.
But the labouring men of Canada know very well what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has just said. It amused the hon. member as well to see those who have paraded under the cloak of free trade for so many years now twisting and squirming by different methods and procedures to get back into the position of protecting these men. Are these the gentlemen who have said that industry exploits labour? Are they the ones who have talked about trusts and monopolies? Are they the ones who want more for labour every day? How can you say that you can give them more and buy from the countries that give them less? Stop and think. It needs only the arithmetic of a second-class student to figure that out.
It is nonsense. It is only because we are able to tell the public and to tell the electors where we stand on this issue. Since the days of confederation the Conservative party has stood for these things. We were the first to inaugurate a fiscal policy that started the industrial development of this country, that made this country what it is today. But down through the years you have ridiculed us in opposition and you have mimicked us while in power.
During the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier you adopted the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald. You ridiculed R. B. Bennett for being a high protectionist. You mimicked him when you came into power, but it is well known in Canadian history that every time the Liberal party has come into power since confederation it has raised the tariff.
I have been amused in watching this spectacle for twenty-five years. This government has been in power for a long time and I compliment them tonight for being the most uniquely cunning political party since confederation. Never has a party been in power which has so many stripes of different policy as the party who sits to your right. We have free traders; we have free lancers; we have socialists; we have pinks; we have those who are bordering on red in the party that is in power today. Mr. Speaker, with all due respects to my friends to your right, they constitute the most mongrel political concoction I have seen since confederation.
I am surprised that they ridicule my hon. friends to my left. They at least wear their colours. They outline for you what they are.

Customs Act
Then my friends down further at least tell you that they believe in the development of our resources for the benefit of our people. But the government over here-there is nothing that you boys could say that we have not got over here.


Mr. Speaker:: I think-


William Earl Rowe: Can I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there has been any justification for my calling the hon. member to order, I think it is now, because he is not discussing the amendment.


William Earl Rowe: If you prefer, I will call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to the War Service Grants Act; then the second reading of the bill to amend the Defence Services Pension Act; then continuation of the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the National Parks Act; then the second reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act; and then we will continue the present debate on the bill to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 11, 1953