1953-04-01

COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. R. O. Campney (for Ihe Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) I beg leave to lay on the table of the house three copies in English of the report by Mr. T. D. MacDonald, as commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, with respect to an alleged combine in the purchase of maple syrup and maple sugar in the province of Quebec. Copies in French will be available almost immediately, I should hope tomorrow.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What are the particulars and nature of the property on Ste. Cecile street, Montreal, sold to Conrad Gauthier, Montreal, as surplus crown assets, for $5,750, as shown at page 22 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1950-51?
2.	What were the dimensions of this property?
3.	Were there any buildings on the property?
4.	If so, how many, of what type, and for what purpose had they been used?
5.	What was the original cost of acquisition of this property, and buildings if any?
6.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of this property?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	The property consisted of lot No. 998 St. Antoine ward, Montreal, P.Q., with buildings thereon bearing municipal numbers 926-928 and 936-938 Ste. Cecile street.
2.	The property had a frontage of 81-75' on Ste. Cecile street with a depth varying from 75-7' to 78-8'.
3.	Yes.
4.	Two-(1) brick semi-detached residence and (1) frame semi-detached residence.
5.	$29,000 per order in council P.C. 4532 October 7, 1948.
6.	Yes.


ARMY CAMP, WINDSOR, N.S.  LAND SOLD
Mr. Stanfield:: 1.	Has any land In the Windsor army camp at Windsor, Nova Scotia, been sold?
2.	If so, what portions, and to whom were they sold?
3.	What amount did the government receive for each portion?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Yes. This camp had been declared surplus in January, 1946, and was turned over to the Department of Labour who used it for vocational training until it was sold.
2.	The whole area of the former Windsor transit camp at Windsor, Nova Scotia, was sold to the town of Windsor, Nova Scotia. The area of land sold amounted to 203-27 acres, including certain easements and rights of way appurtenant to the said land.
3.	The amount paid by the town of Windsor was $43,819.50 being approximately the cost of the said land and easements, together with 8 per cent of the cost of two (2) drill halls situated on the said land and 8 per cent of the cost of the piping, fixtures and hydrants comprised in the water line servicing the camp area.


FEDERAL HEALTH GRANTS, QUEBEC
Mr. Proudfool:: 1.	How much has the federal government contributed in the province of Quebec under the health grants program?
2.	How much has the federal government contributed in the province of Quebec, since 1948, towards (a) hospital construction; (b) control of cancer; (c) in mental health field; (d) T.B. control?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Of a total of $48,631,182 available to the province of Quebec under the health grants program, $27,762,899 has been contributed by the federal government in respect of projects submitted by the province of Quebec and approved.
2.	(a) Of a total of $19,208,190 available to the province of Quebec under the hospital construction grant, $10,052,054 has been contributed by the federal government in respect of projects submitted by the province of Quebec and approved.
(b)	Of a total of $5,171,470 available to the province of Quebec under the cancer control grant, $2,760,193 has been contributed by the federal government in respect of projects submitted by the province of Quebec and approved.
(c)	Of a total of $6,892,169 available to the province of Quebec under the mental health grant, $4,273,266 has been contributed by the

Questions
federal government in respect of projects submitted by the province of Quebec and approved.
(d)	Of a total of $7,516,624 available to the province of Quebec under the tuberculosis control grant, $6,362,396 has been contributed by the federal government in respect of projects submitted by the province of Quebec and approved.
J. H. ASHDOWN HARDWARE CO.-NAILS BOUGHT AS SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS Mr. Fulton:
1.	How many pounds and what size nails were Included in the nails sold to J. H. Ashdown Hardware Company Ltd., for $19,772.32, as surplus crown assets as shown at page 21 of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation report for 1950-51?
2.	What was the original cost of acquisition of these nails?
3.	Were tenders invited for the purchase of these nails?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 
DREDGE NO. 117
Mr. Coyle:: 1.	What efforts has the government made to salvage the dredge, No. 117, which sank in Port Stanley harbour last year?

2.	Were these efforts successful?
3.	What was the cost of these operations?
4.	If these efforts to raise this dredge were not successful, will further efforts be made?
5.	Have the workers on the dredge been reimbursed for the loss of their belongings?
6.	If not, is the matter being given consideration?
7.	Will this dredge be replaced?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	All heavy dredging equipment has been removed, and three attempts have been made to lift and pull the hull inshore.
2.	No.
3.	$44,200.
4.	Yes, when weather conditions permit.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	Yes.
IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION Mr. Brooks:
1.	Is there Canadian representation on the imperial war graves commission?
2.	If so, what are the names (and if in military service, their ranks) of the Canadian representatives?
3.	What officers or employees of the imperial war graves commission are in receipt of salary or other remuneration or expenses, and in each case what is the amount of salary or other remuneration or expenses paid?
4.	What are the locations of the cemeteries of the imperial war graves commission in which Canadian service personnel are buried?


Mr. Mutch:: I have discussed this question with the hon. gentleman in whose name it stands and have given him certain information that is available. He has agreed to let the question drop.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
STATISTICS BUILDING, OTTAWA-DISPOSAL Mr. Diefenbaker:
To whom was the old statistics building on Sussex street disposed of by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, and at what price?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: To Mr. Euchariste Harvey who paid the corporation the price of $1,800 and who has undertaken to demolish down to the level of the concrete floors and remove from the site, two reinforced concrete and brick buildings and a two storey temporary frame building.
GRANTS TO SANATORIA, QUEBEC Mr. Gingues:
1.	What sanatoria in the province of Quebec have received federal grants to improve their technical equipment during the last five years?
2.	What were the amounts of such grants?

3.	Have any sanatoria received grants towards the rehabilitation of tubercular patients? If so, what were the amounts of such grants?
4.	Have any sanatoria received grants for the purchase of trailers (mobile clinics) for the detection of tuberculosis?
Questions
5.	What amount has the sanatorium at Sherbrooke received during the last five years for technical equipment and medicine?
6.	Have the provinces asked for rimifon?


Mr. McCusker:: 1 and 2.
Name of sanatorium	Amounts expended 1948-52	Additional amounts approved 1952-53H6pital Sanatorium St. Joseph de Rosemont	$ cts. 412,439 53 119,808 06 34,585 55 111,476 50 173,116 26 136,928 38 119,993 15 131,834 36 61,424 51 3,960 00 187,431 68 47,475 35	8 cts. 15,375 85 2,532 69 56,294 52 4,262 65Sanatorium Cooke	Sanatorium St. Michel	Sanatorium St. Jean	Sanatorium du Sacr6 Coeur	Sanatorium Ross	22,718 08 6,143 81 18,216 71 1,200 00 2,349 95 90,824 88Sanatorium Saint-Georges	Sanatorium Begin	Royal Edward Laurentian Hospital	Sanatorium St-Frangois	Hopital Laval	Sanatorium du Lac Edouard...	Sanatorium St. Laurent	32,638 67
3.	Yes.
Name of sanatorium	Amounts expended 1948-52	Additional amounts approved 1952-53Sanatorium St. Michel	$ cts. 1,076 40 8,771 69 21,246 00 11,240 00 5,867 00 6,759 63 2,984 50	$ cts. 1,941 55Sanatorium Cooke	Sanatorium du Sacrfe Coeur	4,800 00 4,850 00Hopital Laval	Sanatorium du Lac Edouard	Sanatorium Begin	Sanatorium Ross	1,336 86 7,423 95Hopital Sanatorium St. Joseph de Rosemont	
4.	Yes. Sanatorium Cooke, Sanatorium St. Michel, and Sanatorium St. Jean.
5.	$33,878.22.
6.	Yes. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia.
CHICOUTIMI COUNTY, QUE.-REPAIRS TO WHARVES Mr. Gagnon:
1.	Since April 1, 1945, have repairs been made to wharves at (a) Petit-Saguenay; (b) L'Anse St. Jean; (c) Grande-Baie; (d)) Bagotville, in the county of Chicoutimi?
2.	If so, in what year and in what amount?

Questions


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1 and 2.
1945-	46
(a)	Nil
(b) L'Anse	St. Jean, wharf
repairs	$	34.12
(c)	Grande-Baie, wharf
repairs	 105.10
(d)	Bagotville, wharf
construction	 979.83
1946-	47
(a)	Nil
(b) L'Anse St. Jean, wharf
repairs	 13.28
(c)	Nil
(d)	Bagotville, wharf
construction	 145,779.40



WHARF REPAIRS AND RETAINING WORKS, ROBERVAL., QUE.

Mr. Spence:: During the years 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, what amounts were spent by the Department of Public Works in the county of Roberval for wharf repairs, retaining works, especially at the wharf of Roberval and along the Mistassini river?


Alphonse Fournier: Fiscal year 1949-50: Roberval, wharf repairs, etc., $27,031.71; St. Falicien, wharf repairs, etc., $1,214.33.
Fiscal year 1950-51: St. Felicien, wharf repairs, etc., $798.25; Mistassini, protection works, $9,314.68.
Fiscal year 1951-52: Mistassini, protection works, $9,590.59; Roberval, wharf repairs, etc., $1,116.42.
(a)	Petit-Saguenay, wharf
repairs	
(b)	L'Anse St. Jean, wharf
repairs	
(c)	Nil
(d)	Bagotville, wharf
construction	
1,301.35
143.73
97,107.28
(a)	Nil
(b)	L'Anse St. Jean, wharf
repairs	 157,057.22
(c)	Nil
(d)	Bagotville (Lepage wharf)
repairs	 3,150.75
Bagotville, wharf
construction	 27,245.46
(a)	Nil
(b)	Nil
(c)	Nil
(d)	Bagotville, wharf
construction	 20,005.22
Bagotville, wharf repairs ..	8,310.02
1950-	51
(a)	Petit-Saguenay, wharf
repairs	
(b) L'Anse St. Jean,	wharf
repairs	
(c)	Nil
(d)	Bagotville, wharf, etc.,
repairs	
1951-	52
(a)	Petit-Saguenay, wharf
repairs	
(b) L'Anse St.	Jean, wharf
repairs	
(c)	Nil
(d)	Bagotville, wharf repairs .. 
999.42
1,897.35
14,819.87
809.12
970.63
3,551.22



ARMED FORCES OVERSEAS


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: 1.	Has any special provision been made by the Post Office Department, to facilitate transmission of newspapers and magazines to the Canadian armed forces overseas?
2.	Does any concession granted apply only to Canadian publications, or are United States periodicals included?
3.	Can more than one copy of periodicals be enclosed in one cover at the concessional rate?
4.	Is there any other method of sending magazines in bulk to the Canadian troops overseas?
5.	What is the volume of news and periodicals forwarded by mail in 1952, to Canadian forces in the Far East?


Mr. Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: 1.	Yes, a special reduced postage rate of 2 cents for the first four ounces and 1 cent per four ounces thereafter, instead of the usual rate of 2 cents for the first two ounces and 1 cent for each additional, two ounces has been granted.
2.	The reduced rate mentioned' applies to recognized newspapers and periodicals regardless of the plaice of publication when mailed at Canadian post offices.
3.	Yes, provided the copies enclosed are not individually addressed the reduced rate would apply up to the weight limit of six pounds, nine ounces.
4.	Yes, it is understood that the Canadian Legion and other welfare agencies have made arrangements with the Department of National Defence for the transport through its own non-postal channels of bulk reading material to the Canadian forces serving overseas.
5.	202,396 pounds.



COD FILLETS IN STORAGE

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries any information on the large quantities of fillets from last

year's maritime provinces' catch still in storage unsold or still held on the American market?
2.	Has the Department of Fisheries been informed of a substantial reduction in the price of cod, during the coming fishing season, consequent upon the losses sustained by maritime provinces' packers of fillets on last year's catch?
3.	Has the said department under advisement any plan to set a reasonable floor price for maritime provinces' codfish for the 1953 season or some other system of assisting or subsidizing the cod fishing industry?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	Stocks of frozen Atlantic cod fillets held in Canada on March 1, 1953 amounted to 3,915,000 pounds as compared to 942,000 pounds on March 1, 1952.
The department has no information on stocks of Canadian fish held in the United States.
2.	Prices of cod to fishermen for the 1953 summer season have not yet been established. Currently, prices at Halifax are approximately one-half cent per pound below those paid at the same date a year ago. Prices for the summer season are normally established early in April when the fishing ports of New Brunswick, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton open for fishing.
3.	The fisheries prices support board is keeping a very close watch on the current situation and will be prepared to make recommendation to the government should conditions warrant such action when the new price levels are established.



COMPULSORY WAR SAVINGS, WORLD WAR II

Mr. Fair:: 1.	What was the total amount of compulsory war savings collected in world war II?
2.	What was the date of time limit in which to claim repayment?
3.	What is the total amount repaid?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The total amount of refundable savings portion of tax collected in world war II was $515,094,669.03.
2.	There is no time limit.
3.	$512,099,105.78.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What was the cost of the investigation and report, submitted March, 1950, of the international joint commission on the Passamaquoddy tidal power project?
2.	What amount was paid (a) by United States; (b) by Canada?
3.	Has the United States government, or any department thereof, approached the Canadian government, or any department thereof, with a view
68108-222J
Inquiries of the Ministry of holding a further investigation to determine the economic feasibility of the project?
4.	H so, what is the attitude of the Canadian government?
GEORGE H. HEES, SON & CO. LTD.


Mr. Viau:: 1.	During the years 1950, 1951, 1952, and to date in 1953, were any amounts paid to George H. Hees, Son & Company Limited, 276 Davenport road, Toronto, Ontario, by the following departments: (a) Department of Veterans Affairs; (b) Department of Public Works; (c) Department of Citizenship and Immigration; (d) Department of Justice; (e) Department of Resources and Development; (f) Department of National Health and Welfare; (g) Department of Defence Production; (h) Department of Transport?
2.	If so, what type of merchandise was supplied to each department and at what total amount, in each of the above years?
3.	Were all purchases made direct or by tender?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-White Bay):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) I should like to address a question to his parliamentary assistant. Is the Minister of Fisheries able to inform the house whether the government has made any decision as to the method of marketing Newfoundland salted cod fish at the end of the five-year period established in the terms of union?


Mr. J. Waison MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay was good enough to give advance notice of this question.
In the terms of union the government of Canada agreed to continue for a five-year period the organized marketing system for the export of salted fish. That system, operated by the Newfoundland fisheries board, grants an exclusive export licence to a group known as the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited, known as NAFEL.
The government has taken note of the views of the Newfoundland fishermen and merchants that some plan of organized marketing is necessary. Newfoundland salt fish production is among the world's largest and carries therefore its own selling problems. Certain of the large markets have single buying agencies that make a single selling agency in Newfoundland desirable. Dollar shortages in the main markets add to the difficulties. To try, therefore, to revert to independent merchant selling next year would be to court the danger of market disruption-a danger that would affect the

Inquiries of the Ministry maritime and Quebec salt fish trades as well as Newfoundland. Some system of organized marketing for Newfoundland is necessary.
The existing system of merchandising through NAFEL has provoked certain criticisms from fishermen and others. To take account of their criticisms, the federal government proposes to make certain modifications to the present system.
1.	Since the fishermen's organizations are not represented on NAFEL or its directorate, the Newfoundland fisheries board is being instructed to establish by July 1, 1953, a consultative committee on salt fish marketing. This committee will make continuous review of NAFEL's operations in the marketing of salted fish, the state of the markets, relative prices, costs, and other associated matters. This committee is to be convened by the fisheries board and to include fishermen's representatives, representatives of NAFEL, and a representative from the provincial government of Newfoundland. At these meetings the fisheries board has been instructed to see that a full revelation of facts on marketing is made to the committee.
2.	The government intends to continue the powers of the Newfoundland fisheries board with respect to the marketing of salted fish for a further three-year period as from March 1, 1954.
3.	The exclusive export privileges of NAFEL will be modified by changes in its agreement with the Newfoundland fisheries board.
The most important of these will be a broadening of the opportunities for interprovincial trading. The Newfoundland fisheries board will be prepared to permit sales of wet salted and pickled fish between Newfoundland exporters, including fishermen or groups of fishermen, and buyers from the mainland and continental U.S.A. To protect the Newfoundland fishermen, however, these buyers should make prearranged sales with such Newfoundland exporters in the form of contracts and these contracts shall be arranged before April 30 each year. Copies of contracts are to be deposited with the Newfoundland fisheries board, which will issue the export permits during the season. These transactions may be arranged between buyers and sellers without the intervention of NAFEL and will, therefore, be free of any levy by NAFEL. This provision for prearranged sales should minimize the possibility of fishermen putting up more wet salted or pickled fish than the markets can absorb.
If mainland buyers do not make such forward contracts and if they wish merely to make spot purchases of Newfoundland fish,

either wet or dried during the year, they may do so through NAFEL as at present.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: I should like to ask the
parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries whether this extension of salt bulk and pickled fish trading between the mainland and Newfoundland, to which the parliamentary assistant has just referred, will be effective this season?


John Watson MacNaught: We have just received a communication from the government of Newfoundland asking us to make this change effective for this season. As I indicated in the statement I just made, the Newfoundland fisheries board has an agreement with NAFEL for the 1953 season, as it has had for every other season. This contract cannot be altered without six months' notice unless with the consent of NAFEL. If NAFEL is willing to modify its contract to permit this extension- and I understand that it is willing-then the government has no objection. Not having contemplated this change, the federal government has been adhering to the undertaking in the terms of union that the marketing system would be unchanged for a five-year period.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not think that I am taking advantage of today-


Mr. Knowles:: This is the 1st of April.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is right. With respect to matters such as the statement made by the parliamentary assistant this afternoon, it would be much easier for people on this side of the house if they could have the advantage of having the information supplied to them beforehand. The parliamentary assistant made a long statement which was very difficult to follow, and I suggest with all humility that such a course might be adopted. I want to ask one question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Francis Higgins: All right. I will proceed when you are through, gentlemen. Can the parliamentary assistant tell me what the situation will be this year with respect to the normal markets for Newfoundland salt codfish?


John Watson MacNaught: A day or so ago the hon. member for St. John's East asked me if I was prepared to make a statement covering that problem, and for his information and the information of the house may I say that I expect to be able to make such a statement tomorrow.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: I
should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in view of reports in this morning's papers. Has the government received the petition from the eight provinces requesting the governor in council to rescind the recent decision of the board of transport commissioners in allowing the freight rate increase? If so, when will consideration be given to this petition? I am directing this to the government because of what the Minister of Transport said the other day.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am not too sure, but I understand that the hon. member's question has to do with rescission of the decision of the board.


Major James William Coldwell: The petition requests the
rescinding of the recent order of the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: I see in the press that
eight provinces have filed an appeal.


Major James William Coldwell: That is why I asked the
question.


Lionel Chevrier: I have been informed by the clerk of the privy council that an appeal has been received. I have not seen the notice of appeal, but I take it that it would not be for rescission at this time. As my hon. friend knows, and as was explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in all of the cases that have been appealed there has been no rescission. I take it that in due course the notice of appeal will be set down on the agenda for discussion at one of the ordinary meetings.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and Mr. Frank Hall have been doing a splendid job in handling the threatened strike at the lakehead.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: My question of privilege is to thank them emphatically at this time for their most efficient work.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Arising out of the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William, may I ask the Minister of Labour what is the present situation with respect to the strike on the west coast?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first as to the lakehead dispute a conference was held in Ottawa, as I think hon. members know, last Friday and Saturday on my request in connection with the dispute that had developed at the lakehead on the question, of the interpretation of a provision of the agreement which was made last September between the lakehead terminal elevators association and the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, freight handlers, express and station employees. The dispute now involves the application of the provision of the agreement respecting the reduction of hours from forty-eight to forty hours per week.
I met five representatives of the association and five representatives of the brotherhood who were here last Friday. The dis'-cussions, which were assisted by officers of the Department of Labour, terminated Saturday afternoon and the parties authorized the Minister of Labour to make the following statement, which was made:
The Hon. M. F. Gregg today announced that the representatives of the grain companies and of the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, freight handlers, express and station employees had completed their discussions in Ottawa. Both representatives of the companies and the brotherhood stated that they were moving towards an agreement.
This week the two negotiating parties who were here have been holding meetings., each with its own main body, and I hope to have replies from both of them within a few days.


Howard Charles Green: My question was with regard to the strike on the west coast.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot add very much on that. As hon. members will remember, a proposal was addressed to both parties by our representative, Mr. Wilson, before he left Vancouver, that recommended that agreement on several points be reached, that work be renewed and that the dispute over the wage increase be referred to an arbitrator who would be chosen by both parties and whose decision would be final. I have not had a final report as to the views of the two parties regarding that proposal.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister given any thought to having the parties come to Ottawa in the hope that this strike can also be settled?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Before coming to a decision on that matter, I should like to have a reply from the two parties with respect to what is, in my opinion, a very sound proposal for settlement that is now in their hands.
3498	HOUSE OF
Excise Tax Act CIVIL SERVICE



REQUEST FOR HOLIDAY ON SATURDAY, APRIL 4

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Has he given any consideration to granting a holiday on Saturday next to civil servants in Ottawa and district to put them in line, at least for this week, with other civil servants in the rest of Canada on a five-day week?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: No consideration has been given to that matter thus far.



EXCISE TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 225, to amend the Excise Tax Act-Mr. Abbott- Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 11.
The Deputy Chairman:: I understand that the committee was considering clause 12.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: No, clause 11.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 11 carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. Just before the committee rose last evening I was drawing to its attention the terms of the note on clause 11 which, after explaining that the excise tax on radios was being separated from the excise tax on television sets, winds up with this sentence:
The Item has been further clarified by using more descriptive terms.
I said last night that my understanding was that that was a considerable understatement because according to my information this section in fact extends the operation of the act. That is my information. If it does, then it is in effect and in fact a section whereby money is being raised or, in other words, a money bill. The parliamentary-assistant shakes his head when I say that the effect is extended. I therefore ask very definitely whether it is not extended at least to the extent of bringing within its purview the articles on which an appeal was made to the tariff board and concerning which the tariff board said that they were not covered. The phraseology in question is "telecast receiving units". I am proceeding on the assumption and on the belief that this section does extend taxation, and that it is therefore a money bill. I am pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that it is not supported by any resolution. I go further on that basis, Mr. Chairman, and I point out that it is improperly before the committee because, if


it is in fact a money bill, and if in fact it is raising money, it should have been preceded by a resolution, and that is not the case.
Therefore, following that, I wish to ask whether in fact on February 19 notices were sent to the relevant officials advising them that the additional materials brought under the act would from that day on be subject to tax. I would like to have that question answered first, if I may.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully differ with the opinion of the hon. member for Greenwood. I have to express the opinion, which is the opinion of the law officers of the crown, that the tubes, sets and apparatus to which my hon. friend has referred are subject to tax under section 6 as it was, and as it can be read on the page of the bill opposite section 11. The apparatus is described as radio broadcast, telecast and music receiving sets. The installations are mostly in private homes. The sets are imported completely manufactured and include some seventeen tubes in addition to the cathode ray television tube and the loud speaker. The value, duty free, is around $216.
Now, let us look at what the old section says:
Phonographs, record playing devices, radio broadcast or telecast receiving sets or tubes therefor, apparatus for receiving radio broadcast and music . . .
The opinion of the law officers of the crown has been and is that all the apparatus, the sets and tubes which I have mentioned as being included in these rediffusion sets, are covered by section 6 as it was; and that the new words of subsection (b) of new section 6 are only for clarification purposes. The law officers do not agree with the decision of the tariff board. A tax has been levied in the past. There was an appeal to the tariff board which was granted for these rediffusion sets as they apply to television but yesterday a request for leave for appeal was heard by a justice of the exchequer court who has reserved his judgment. The legal position now, at the time I am speaking, is that in the opinion of the law officers of the crown the new wording does not extend the taxation, it only clarifies the section.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I find that very hard to understand, but let me ask this definite question. Does the parliamentary assistant agree that the tariff board did reach a conclusion that certain of the articles now covered by this wording on which taxation had been collected were not properly taxable? Is that a fact?


Jean Lesage: That is not a final decision; it is being appealed from.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the decision not take effect from the time it is made?


Jean Lesage: Not if there is an appeal.


Mr. Abbott:: Perhaps I can relieve my hon. friend's doubts about the legality of the matter. Conceding, for the purpose of argument, that it does extend the tax, if he will look at the terms of the resolution upon which this bill is before the house he will see that it reads, resolved:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act-
And I pause there.
-and to provide, amongst other things: and it enumerates a number of things.
The opinion of the law officers is and has been for some time that it is quite sufficient, in order to comply with the provisions of the British North America Act, that the resolution should be merely in the terms "resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act". That justifies any amendment that it may be desirable on the part of the crown to introduce. As a matter of practice it has been usual to enumerate in the resolution the principal changes; but I am pointing out to my hon. friend that even if this provision did extend the ambit of the section, which, as my parliamentary assistant has indicated, we do not believe, the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill is quite sufficient in law to justify such action.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand the minister to say that the general words of the section to which he has referred would authorize an increase in taxation to any limit?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite. To any limit at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is a
new idea to me.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It happens to be true.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am taking the minister's word but may we have an opinion from the law officers? I would be interested to hear what they would say.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend would take the trouble to see the law clerk of the house he would reassure him of that very quickly.


The Chairman:: Shall section 11 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Excise Tax Act On section 12.
Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, there has
been quite a lengthy discussion on tires and tubes for replacement purposes on farm trailers. At page 3114 of Hansard for March 19, for instance, the hon. member for Huron North said:
There is going to be some difficulty about this. The tires for a trailer or any farm machine are not suitable for speeding on the highway. They just cannot be used on a car because if you used them at any speed you would wear off the tread in a few moments. There is a great difference between a tire used for farm work and one used on the highway.
My answer at that time was:
I will say again what I said this afternoon, that according to the proposed amendment the test of the exemption would not be on the tires and tubes themselves; it would be on the vehicles on which the tires and tubes are to be used. Following the representations made by my hon. friends this afternoon, I said that speedy consideration would be given to the possibility of applying the test to the tires and tubes.
Consideration has been given and the officers of the Department of National Revenue have been in touch with the representatives of the manufacturers of tires and tubes to discover whether it is possible to have a test on the make of the tires and tubes used on farm machinery. It has been possible to find a wording which, I believe, will cover the situation. If my hon. friends will look at section 12 as it reads now I will tell them the purpose of the amendment which I will ask the Minister of National Revenue to move. The intention of the amendment is to make three exceptions in line 36 after the word "therein". We will there make a special paragraph which will be numbered (i) which will read as follows: When used exclusively for the original equipment of such self-propelled machines, automotive vehicles, trailers or other wheeled attachments,
Then, (ii) reads:
When used exclusively for replacement purposes on machinery designed for and used only for farm purposes.
Then, the addition is in (iii), which reads: When designed and catalogued for farm machinery and used on farm trailers used exclusively for farm purposes.
I believe that covers exactly the problem that was raised by hon. members. May I repeat the important words:
When designed and catalogued for farm machinery and used on farm trailers used exclusively for farm purposes.
May I add it appears from the discussions the officers of the Department of National Revenue have had with the manufacturers of tires and tubes that there are no tires and tubes which are made especially

Excise Tax Act
for trailers. The situation is that tires are made for farm machinery, and those tires are bought by some farmers for use on their trailers. I see that the hon. member for Battle River is nodding his head, so he approves of my statement of the position. I believe he is one of those who have made representations in order to obtain such an amendment.


Mr. Fair:: That is the point I was going to make. It is clear, then, that tires and tubes for farm trailers will be sold without the tax?


Jean Lesage: When designed and catalogued for farm machinery; that is what was requested.


Mr. Charlton:: As I understand it, then, replacement tires for farm trailers, to be used exclusively on the farm, if it is an implement tire, is tax free?


Jean Lesage: That is exactly the position.


Mr. Fraser:: May I ask a question there? There are some farmers who have one farm in one end of the township and another farm at the other end of the township. They would have to go on the highway and pull that trailer, perhaps with a tractor, from one farm to the other. Would that still be considered used exclusively on the farm?


Jean Lesage: May I repeat the wording, which I believe will satisfy my hon. friend? It says:
When designed and catalogued tor farm machinery and used on farm trailers used exclusively for farm purposes.
It does not say it has to be used only on the farm, but exclusively for farm purposes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If that farmer put the trailer behind his car and drove to town, perhaps with a load of grain, would it still be considered a farm trailer?


Jean Lesage: It is still used for farm purposes, so it is still a farm trailer. But if he travels long distances at a high speed with this type of tire, it will cost him a lot of money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He will have a blowout.


Mr. McCann:: I move:
That section 12 of the bill be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
12. Section 13 of schedule I to the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"13. Tires and tubes:-
(a) Tires in whole or in part of rubber for self-propelled machines or automotive vehicles of all kinds, including trailers or other wheeled attachments used in connection with any of the said machines or vehicles . . , fifteen per cent;

(b) Inner tubes for use in any such tires . . . fifteen per cent;
the tax on the articles enumerated in paragraph (a) and (b) of this section does not apply to the goods mentioned therein
(i)	when used exclusively for the original equipment of such self-propelled machines, automotive vehicles, trailers or other wheeled attachments,
(ii)	when used exclusively for replacement purposes on machinery designed for and used only for farm purposes, or
(iii)	when designed and catalogued for farm machinery and used on farm trailers used exclusively for farm purposes."


William Alfred Robinson: The committee has heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Repeal and substitution.
Jean Lesage: May I propose that we take the schedule page by page?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is agreed to, and since I am in an agreeable mood, perhaps I might be permitted, as a matter of privilege and without entering into an argument, to place upon the record the fact that I, for one, cannot agree with the statement made by the Minister of Finance a moment ago when he was replying to the hon. member for Greenwood as to the terms of a resolution preceding a bill imposing taxes. As I say, no point of order has been raised and no point of order has to be settled. I do not think it would be fair, however, to those of us on this side of the house for that statement to be left on the record without any suggestion that there is an argument on the other side. I should like to place on the record the fact that citation 515 of Beauchesne's third edition reads as follows:
Debate and amendment on the stages of the finance bill or other bills imposing taxes are governed by the ordinary rules of relevancy and, if any of the provisions of the bill should be found to go beyond the resolutions of the committee of ways and means or other committee of the whole house, as agreed to by the house on report upon which the bill is founded, a further resolution must be passed by the committee of ways and means or other committee of the whole house, and agreed to by the house before those provisions are considered in committee on the bill, or the bill must be amended so as to conform to the resolutions to which the house has agreed. Amendments to the bill which are not covered by resolutions of the committee of ways and means or other committee of the whole house are out of order. Amendments have also been ruled out of order as not relating to the finance of the year.


Jean Lesage: What date is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is from page 185 of Beauchesne's third edition.


Jean Lesage: What date is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is taken from May, and it is an old principle that was laid down quite a few years ago.


Jean Lesage: I understand that the minister said the legal opinion of the law clerks is now that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am surprised to hear my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, deprecating an opinion because it is an old one.


Jean Lesage: That is not what I said. I said it was an old citation. My friend knows that even courts have reversed their own previous judgments and opinions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not my purpose to get into an argument over the matter.


Jean Lesage: I just want the record to be straight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I want. I have great respect for the opinions of the law officers and law clerks, but after all it is their function to advise us and the practice is determined by parliament. I submit that up to this time parliament has made no change in this practice which calls for a resolution setting out what is coming to precede all bills that impose taxation.
Now, as I said before the interruption of a moment ago, it was not my purpose at this point to enter into an argument over this question because I think it can be contended that the particular matter we were debating today is referred to in the resolution, at least in a general way. I do feel, however, that the general rule which the Minister of Finance sought to lay down should not go unchallenged. In my view it is still a requirement of this parliament that a bill imposing taxation should be preceded by a resolution setting out the terms of that proposed taxation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word. When the Minister of Finance made this statement, the strength of which surprised me-I respect him, both as a lawyer and in his capacity as a minister-I asked that I be furnished with the opinion of the law officers of the crown. While it was not clear whether I was to have it in writing, I do hope that I may have it in writing. In any event, there was a strong statement made by the minister which I found very surprising, but which I nevertheless took, but I am asking that I may be fully satisfied as to the authority upon which he made it.


Mr. Graydon:: Who said the law officers of the crown were infallible, anyway?


Mr. McLure:: Who are they, anyway?
Excise Tax Act


William Alfred Robinson: Shall section 13 carry?


Mr. Robichaud:: No. Last night when I rose in this chamber and attempted to make a few brief remarks on clause 1 of the bill now before the committee, I was informed by the parliamentary assistant that my remarks should come under section 13; and the chairman at the time asked me whether I was satisfied to defer my remarks until section 13 came before the committee. I submit that it is now time for me to make the few brief remarks I wish to make, if the parliamentary assistant does not object.


Jean Lesage: I proposed a few moments ago-and I thought it was agreeable and would make for more orderly discussion- that we take schedule III page by page, because section 13 deals with schedule III. I suggest that we let section 13 stand until we have adopted schedule III. I believe that would make for orderly discussion.


Gordon Graydon: I understood last night that it was agreed that the hon. member for Gloucester would have the opportunity to speak when section 13 was called. I think that understanding ought to be adhered to now.


Jean Lesage: Yes, I know. I have discussed the problem and the question which the hon-member for Gloucester wants to raise, and I know it is covered on page 11 of that schedule.


Gordon Graydon: How do you know what he is going to say?


Jean Lesage: He has said it many times.


Gordon Graydon: He might change the record this time.


Jean Lesage: Yes. But schedule III is a long list of exemptions from the sales tax. If we go over this without any order, I do not know how we shall get through.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would it not be better to allow the hon. member to speak now?


Jean Lesage: All right. I have amendments that will cover his point.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Gloucester.


Gordon Graydon: Let us hear his point
anyway.


Albany M. Robichaud: As reported at page 3487 of Hansard it was the parliamentary assistant himself who said as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is now referring to matters which should come under section 13. As a matter of fact, following-

Excise Tax Act


William Alfred Robinson: Order. We have already disposed of the point and decided that the hon. member is privileged to proceed. Will he now confine his remarks to section 13?


Albany M. Robichaud: For the sake of brevity, Mr. Chairman, I shall bow to your ruling. I wish to assure the parliamentary assistant that my remarks will be indeed brief because the statement which he made last night in this committee containing the assurance that an important amendment was going to be made today to schedule III of the bill now before the committee under the heading "marine and fisheries", whereby rope and cordage of cotton, hemp, manila, nylon or other vegetable fibre of all sizes and descriptions to be used in fisheries will henceforth be sales tax exempt, makes it imperative for me to refrain from making any lengthy remarks because this amendment is perfectly in line with the suggestion which I offered to the Minister of Finance in my speech on the budget on March 5.


Jean Lesage: Hear, hear.


Albany M. Robichaud: Thank you.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member will get credit for it.


Albany M. Robichaud: In order to comply with the principle which seems finally to be a la mode in this committee, namely the principle of brevity, I shall refrain from making any further remarks and shall content myself with voicing appreciation, on behalf of the fishermen of Gloucester county in the province of New Brunswick, to the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary assistant for having acceded to the request and the suggestion which I made in my budget speech.


Mr. Gray  don:@: The hon. member deserves a great deal of credit for it.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I would not want this clause to pass and the hon. member for Gloucester to go home thinking that he has been responsible for this change. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that these changes were brought to the attention of the minister and his parliamentary assistant by other maritimers who are greatly interested in the fishing industry. I do appreciate the fact that my hon. friend mentioned the matter on the floor of the house and that the fisheries council of Canada were kind enough to take the matter up collectively with the department; and we all appreciate the way in which it was dealt with by the minister and by the officials of his department. These concessions may seem small but they are appreciated by all the fishermen in the 
maritime provinces; and I believe the fishermen down there realize that the members from there are all working toward the same end.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: May I point out to the committee, as was pointed out last evening, that sections 15 to 27 of the second part are merely repetition of the sections which have just been approved by the committee. May I therefore have the agreement of the committee to call sections 15 to 27 inclusive at one time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: I have no objection to that procedure, Mr. Chairman, but section 26 has to be amended in the same way as section 12 was amended.


William Alfred Robinson: Then may I call sections 15 to 25 inclusive?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On sections 15 to 25 inclusive.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should just like to ask one question on section 22. It deals with "producer or manufacturer". No consideration at all is given to an assembler. An assembler may not be included in this "producer or manufacturer". I brought that matter up for consideration once before, but it never was changed.


Jean Lesage: Section 22 has the same wording as has section 8 which was passed last night and which was discussed last night.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: But does it designate "assembler"?


Jean Lesage: No.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Or are you dealing only with "producer or manufacturer"?


Jean Lesage: It has always been considered, Mr. Chairman, that assembling is a manufacturing process.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: He is not a manufacturer, just the same. You can grade him as you like, but an assembler never makes anything. He puts together and assembles, but he does not manufacture or produce anything. There is quite a big difference.


Jean Lesage: I do not see that I can say anything more, Mr. Chairman, than that for the purpose of this act assembling has always been considered as manufacturing or producing.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clauses carry?



I. 1953

Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Sections 15 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On section 26.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I move that section 26 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor. It is practically the same as we have under section 12.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Graydon: Should we not know what the amendment is? If the minister had said it was exactly the same as was to be found under section 12, that would be all right. But the minister said it was practically the same.


William Alfred Robinson: It is moved by the Minister of National Revenue, as follows:
That section 26 of the bill be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
26. Section 13 of schedule 1 to the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"13. Tires and tubes:
(a)	Tires in whole or in part of rubber for self-propelled machines or automotive vehicles of all kinds, including trailers or other wheeled attachments used in connection with any of the said machines or vehicles . . . fifteen per cent;
(b)	Inner tubes for use in any such tires . . . fifteen per cent;
The tax on the articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section does not apply to the goods mentioned therein
(i)	when used exclusively for the original equipment of such self-propelled machines, automotive vehicles, trailers or other wheeled attachments,
(ii)	when used exclusively for replacement purposes on machinery designed for and used only for farm purposes, or
(iii)	when designed and catalogued for farm machinery and used on farm trailers used exclusively for farm purposes."
Shall the amendment 'carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
On schedule III.
Stanley Howard Knowles: How shall we deal with the schedule? Shall we proceed page by page, or according to the headings?


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that we shall call the headings on the various pages?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Then, we shall proceed with the heading "Foodstuffs".


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman, I have not been able to attend during the whole discussion, and I am not as familiar as perhaps I should be with the schedules
Excise Tax Act
in the budget speech. Do I understand that all the articles in this extensive schedule are now to be exempt from sales tax?


James Joseph McCann: They have been.


Jean Lesage: As a matter of fact, practically all of them have been. The only amendments now brought down are underlined. If the hon. member will look at the schedule he will see that under the heading "Foodstuffs" the only change is in the last paragraph, with the words:
Materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture or production of the aforementioned foodstuffs.
It might be flavouring, for instance, in the manufacture of ice cream.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: With reference to drinks prepared from milk or eggs, does that have reference to a liquid or a dry preparation?


Jean Lesage: A liquid preparation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would not cover a dry preparation?


Jean Lesage: No. There was a discussion of that point last year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I brought it up at that time.


Jean Lesage: Powdered milk is contained in the exempt list.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would be milk in dry form?


Jean Lesage: Powdered milk is in dry form, yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would have reference to powdered milk and powdered eggs?


Jean Lesage: My information is that it would.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then, Ovaltine would be
exempt?


Jean Lesage: I am informed that Ovaltine is a composition, that it is not composed entirely of powdered eggs and powdered milk, but that there are other ingredients.


Mr. Gauthier (Porfneuf):: There are four other ingredients.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The words used are "drinks prepared from milk or eggs"; but the word "exclusively" does not appear.


Jean Lesage: Exceptions, in law, have to be interpreted strictly. Ovaltine is not mentioned there.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know that. Then, farther down on the list, there is reference to "prepared whipping cream". I would understand that that is the product which shoots out when a button is pushed?


Jean Lesage: Yes.

Excise Tax Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is that prepared from cream, or is it a vegetable oil preparation?


Jean Lesage: I am informed it is prepared from cream.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not exclusively cream, is it? I would understand that it would be in the same class as powdered drinks.


Jean Lesage: I am informed that it is prepared whipping cream, and that possibly there is some sugar in it.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: There is.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And vegetable oils?


Jean Lesage: Officials of the Department of National Revenue inform me that they do not believe it contains vegetable oils.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My understanding is that there is a considerable quantity of vegetable oil in it.


Mr. Follwell:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we should commend the parliamentary assistant for the manner in which he is supplying the information required today. I believe it is under this part of the bill that I might be permitted to make some observations concerning one of my constituents in Hastings South. I speak about the W. T. Hawkins Company Limited, who manufacture a product known as caramel corn snacks.
The department is familiar with this subject, because for the last two years the plight of this company has been brought to its attention, as well as to that of the minister. Although we have been received very sympathetically, unfortunately something more than sympathy is needed and desired. It is all right to sympathize with a man who is drowning, but it is much better to throw him a rope.
I am sure the parliamentary assistant is familiar with this particular case, so I shall not be long in placing the situation before the committee. Perhaps it would be sufficient to point out that caramel corn snacks is a product manufactured in Tweed. It is made from popcorn, with some sugar added, admittedly. However, I do feel that it should fall into that class described as "cereal breakfast foods not including beverages".
This is a corn product. At the present time it is required to pay a 15 per cent excise tax, while from 90 to 95 per cent of all competitive corn products, such as cheese-coated, powdered and salted popcorn sold in Canada is not covered by the excise tax.
Caramel corn snacks is sold in direct competition with these other types of popcorn. There are, of course, the cereal products

known as sugar crisp, sugar puffs and com pops, manufactured by Post, Quaker Oats and Kellogg, which are advertised, sold and consumed as sweet snacks, but without paying any sales tax or excise tax.
I suggest the department should take another look at this situation, because the company is now suffering from receding returns, inasmuch as it is meeting with sales resistance, due to the excise tax. Their sales have fallen so low that the government would be collecting practically no excise or sales tax. If they were permitted to operate as their competition operates-that is, without the restraint of this 15 per cent excise tax- their sales would increase, they would pay more sales tax, and would also be subject to income tax.
As I have pointed out, they say they have now reached the point where there is a diminishing return to the department. If these so-called cereal products are sold not only free of excise tax but also free of sales tax, it would seem that the department is not using all in the same way. I think all hon. members in the committee would agree that the government has never tried to place a business in a position where it could not operate. They have always endeavoured to be helpful and I think in this instance the government would do well to amend the regulations and exempt popcorn. I am appealing on behalf of this company which is situated in the village of Tweed. This is a small village without a great many industries and the W. T. Hawkins Company has been giving considerable employment.
As 95 per cent of popcorn products are now outside the act as far as excise taxes are concerned, I think the government might very well permit this company to market their products tax free. Could the parliamentary assistant inform the committee whether this could be done? I see no reason why it could not.


Jean Lesage: The candied popcorn to which my hon. friend has referred competes with candy and not with cereal breakfast foods which have been mentioned.


Gordon Graydon: It competes with popcorn, which does not pay anything.


Jean Lesage: This is candied popcorn which competes with candy. As a matter of fact, there is a decision of the tariff board that it is a substitute for candy and taxable as such 15 per cent excise tax and 10 per cent sales tax. As the members of the committee know, the government does not want to do anything that might ruin a business, and this matter will receive further consideration.


Gordon Graydon: I think it had better.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we go into the section of the schedule dealing with farm and forest. Then on page 10, engines, and on page 11, mines and quarries. The next section is marine and fisheries.


James Joseph McCann: I move:
That schedule III be further amended under the heading "marine and fisheries" by deleting in the second line of the fourth paragraph the words, "not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference", and substituting therefor the words "or nylon".


Albany M. Robichaud: May I suggest to the parliamentary assistant and the officials that there should be no objection to enlarging the proposed amendment so as to exempt steel or wire rope used by fishermen from the sales tax. Has that matter been considered?


Jean Lesage: The matter has been considered but it was not found advisable to do it at this time. The exemptions from sales tax are spread so that they will cover all kinds of ropes made of vegetable substances or nylon. This latter item was suggested by the fisheries council. It is an important step and also the officers of the Department of National Revenue want to acquire experience in connection with these exemptions. As my hon. friend knows, exemptions such as the present can be granted only under a system of conditional certificates of use. In the case of ropes for fishing purposes it is easier to verify that most of the rope sent to a fishing district will be used for fishing purposes and thus be exempt.
Wire rope is used mostly in the contracting business and in connection with power winches, the digging of wells and so on. Only a very small portion of wire rope would be used directly in fishing. It is felt that the control would be much more difficult. As I said, the officials of the department wish to acquire experience in connection with the extensions given this year by the amendment just proposed.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Is it not true that wire rope was placed in a different class for tariff purposes when used for fishing? How do you explain that in the light of your statement now that it is difficult to say what proportion is used for that purpose?


Jean Lesage: Control is much easier at customs. I think my hon. friend will agree that anything coming through customs can be controlled there, but this product might be sold by a manufacturer and could not be controlled by the officers of the department.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not follow that at all. Do you mean to tell me that no one but the ultimate user of the rope actually imports it?
Excise Tax Act


Jean Lesage: I am informed that it is not very easy. All these conditional certificates create difficulties and that is why it is not thought advisable to extend these exemptions too widely and too suddenly. We have to go step by step and acquire experience.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can understand that, but I cannot understand why the rule that would apply to the tariff would not apply to the sales tax. The hon. member for Gloucester has asked for the elimination of the sales tax on this wire rope. Apparently it could be handled for tariff purposes and I cannot see why you cannot handle it for the purposes of the sales tax.


James Joseph McCann: One tax has already been lowered.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: For fishing purposes. You had to separate it in that case.


James Joseph McCann: You have to get some revenue.


Albany M. Robichaud: The parliamentary assistant has referred to the recommendation of the fisheries council of Canada. Was that in the form of a brief or letter dated March 23, 1953, which asked for the exemption from sales tax of rope exceeding one inch and a half in circumference?


Jean Lesage: That is right.


Albany M. Robichaud: According to the statement made by the parliamentary assistant, as reported on page 3265 of Hansard of March 25, this was a brief or letter from the fisheries council of Canada which was received in the office of the Minister of Finance on March 23.


Jean Lesage: I do not see what that has to do with this matter, but I believe that is what I said.


Albany M. Robichaud: It has this to do with it. The parliamentary assistant seems to be directing all the credit for this amendment to the fisheries council of Canada.


Jean Lesage: If my hon. friend wants me to name all the persons and organizations that have made representations on this matter I would start with the Minister of Fisheries who made his representations long before the hon. member for Gloucester.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: I should like to express at this time the appreciation which I am sure the fishermen of Newfoundland feel at the introduction of this amendment. This is a further indication to them of the great interest which this government is taking on their behalf. I feel sure that it will be most welcome at this time because, as has already been said by the parliamentary assistant, there have been many requests for exemptions to permit the bringing in of

Excise Tax Act
additional sizes of cordage. As the committee will readily understand, so far as fishing is concerned cordage is one of the most important items that the fisherman has to provide. Many of the materials and fibres that go into the making of cordage have to be imported from other countries. We are dependent upon outside sources for them and, so to speak, we are bound to pay the prices which they ask for the materials. Today, when prices of the products of the fisherman are going down, when he is not getting so much for his catch as he did in past years, I think this amendment will be most welcome to the fishermen of Newfoundland.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You have added the word "nylon"?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is one other point. It refers to rope not exceeding one inch and a half.


An hon. Member:: That has been struck out.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is it rope of any size now?


Jean Lesage: That is right. That is the purpose of the amendment just moved by the Minister of National Revenue.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Any size?


Jean Lesage: Any size of rope.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: We will now take up the next paragraph, "Charitable, health, etc."


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope there may be an amendment to this section. Do I see one coming up?


Jean Lesage: No, not at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to express my deep regret, and I am sure the regret and disappointment of a great many Canadians, that the government has not seen fit to widen the list of drugs that are free from the provisions of the Excise Tax Act, including in some cases excise tax as well as sales tax. The government makes a great deal of the fact that it does exempt the few drugs that are listed here, ACTH, cortisone, insulin and radium, together with liver extract. But as the parliamentary assistant knows, and as the Minister of National Revenue knows from his own experience as a medical doctor, there are a great many drugs that are prescribed by doctors to Canadians today which are costing the Canadian people far more than they should. One of the reasons they are costing so much is the taxation on these drugs imposed and collected by the Canadian government.
CMr. Ashbourne.]
I have in mind some of the new drugs that have come into use in recent years which are most helpful to people. I thing of the drugs that are referred to as antibiotics. I think of the drugs that are prescribed for people suffering with various heart disorders, not to mention the great many now ordinary drugs such as vitamin preparations and so on which are really helpful to the health of the Canadian people. I must say that I for one-and I am sure a great many people feel this way-cannot see any reason at all for the terrible slowness on the part of the government in extending this list. I hope that even yet consideration may be given to the matter. We have all had experiences with these items ourselves and we are running into people all the time who are helped by such drugs. But when one has to pay 50 or 75 cents or $1 or more for a single pill that is new and very helpful, it frequently detracts from the good that is done by these medicines because they cost so much. I think that the government, which is so slow to come along with a national health program, might at least make this contribution to the health of the people and reduce the cost of these expensive drugs by including many more drugs than are now included in the list of those exempt from the sales tax.


Mr. Murray (Oxford):: Does the sales tax exemption apply only to liver extract for injection purposes or does it apply to liver extract taken orally for anaemia?


Jean Lesage: The answer is that it applies to both.


William Alfred Robinson: We will now proceed with the heading "Printing and educational".


Mr. Murphy:: I should like to say a word here. I do not know whether I am in order. I spoke to the parliamentary assistant yesterday about the matter. It has to do with magazines, and I am only mentioning it because it is included on page 12 in an indirect sort of way. The situation is that United States magazines shipped into Canada carry an additional charge of $1 a year. I want to read a paragraph or two from a letter from Forbes Magazine of Business in reply to a complaint by a Canadian subscriber. The two paragraphs will place the situation before the committee, and then I should like to have an answer, if possible. The letter reads in part as follows:
As I explained in my previous letter, the charge was set up originally-
That is the $1 a year extra.
-to cover the additional cost of handling Canadian subscriptions due to extra postage and import duties which Canada has imposed from time to time on our magazines.

I think the next- paragraph is important.
We are fully aware that at the present time there is no import duty on our publication but we have left this special handling charge intact awaiting future developments.


Jean Lesage: There is no sales tax on magazines coming from the United States.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I understand there is not. I wonder if this is the right place to argue this point. United States magazines come into Canada at a charge $1 a year higher than the charge in the United States. For instance, Detroit is across the river from Windsor. The same magazines are shipped to Windsor as are shipped to Detroit but they are sold at a higher price in Canada because the publishers say:
We are fully aware that at the present time there is no import duty on our publication but we have left this special handling charge intact awaiting future developments.
Why should Canadians have to pay that extra dollar which is now going into the hands of United States publishers? If they are going to get it and we are going to have to pay it, then let the department consider some tariff or sales tax on these United States publications. There is no reason why Canadians should pay the extra dollar when Americans do not have to. At the same time the United States publication is permitted to come into this country and to be sold at a higher price. The United States publisher charges $1 a year extra for the same magazine.


Jean Lesage: If there were a sales tax or an increase in import duties then the $1 extra charged by the publishers, pot by the Canadian government but by the publishers and over which the Canadian government has no control whatsoever, could be increased to $2 or $3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the way taxes pyramid, all right.


Jean Lesage: Do I understand that the hon. member is suggesting that we impose other taxes? If we did so I would suppose that the spread, instead of being $1, would toe greater. We have no control at all over subscription rates on United States magazines.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am afraid the parliamentary assistant does not get my point. I want the record clear and I am sure he does too. As I said before, I do not know whether this is the right moment to argue this point.


William Alfred Robinson: I am afraid this is not properly brought up under "Printing and educational". I wonder if the hon. member might not bring it up at some other time.
Excise Tax Act


Joseph Warner Murphy: Well, Mr. Chairman, on page 12 at the beginning of the second paragraph it says:
-newspapers; magazines and literary papers unbound-
They are included in the section. I certainly apologize to the committee if this is not the proper time to raise the question; however,
I think it is the proper time for someone to bring this to the attention of the government. We as Canadians are being penalized this extra dollar because the United States publishers say that at some time we may make some change in respect of customs or excise duties. At the present time no change has been made and none is contemplated; but as a result of the uncertainty we are being charged a dollar a year for these United States magazines. If they are going to charge us this extra dollar I suggest that it might be a means of the government obtaining revenue. Canadians are paying it, and we should1 not be required to do so. If the Americans are going to get an extra dollar from the Canadian people then let them put that dollar into the Canadian treasury.


James Joseph McCann: The only remedy is to refuse to buy their magazines.


Joseph Warner Murphy: No, that is not it. I think this is a matter that deserves the attention of the government and I think the minister would agree with me that there is no reason why he, living in Windsor, should pay a dollar a year more for a magazine than if he were living in Detroit. They are supposed to be the same price on both sides of the border. The excuse which is given is silly. I think it is time the matter was brought to the attention of the government, and I have appreciated this opportunity. I will repeat what they say:
As I explained in my previous letter, the charge was set up originally to cover the additional cost of handling Canadian subscriptions due to extra postage and import duties which Canada has imposed from time to time on our magazines.
I will let that stay on the record so it will be there for your officials to consider.
We are fully aware that at the present time there is no import duty on our publication but we have left this special handling charge intact awaiting future developments.
I am finding no fault with the department but you now have it on the record so some action may be considered.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Write a letter to Washington.


William Alfred Robinson: Have we finished the discussion on "Printing and educational"?

Excise Tax Act


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I would like to ask one question oI the parliamentary assistant. Under the expression "cultural" I presume music is included. Are all kinds of books of music included under that word on page 12?


Jean Lesage: Music books if bound, and with no advertising, are exempt from sales tax; but sheet music, that is to say loose pages folded, or merely inserted one within the other and not fastened, are subject to sales tax.


Gordon Graydon: Why?


Jean Lesage: They are not bound books.


Gordon Graydon: You are penalizing the choirs of Canada by that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The other day when we were considering this I asked the parliamentary assistant about church service papers. I think there may be some confusion in the terminology and I know that a great many churches refer to what basically are service papers as calendars, because they are published weekly. Others call them service papers, which they rightly are. They are part of the service. In some cases, a great many cases of which I know, they record parts of the service on those papers- sometimes hymns and so on that are used in the service.
Will the parliamentary assistant say whether this has been taken into consideration?, These have always been subject to sales tax, but it seems to me they are items that should be exempt from sales tax just like hymn books or lesson cards for Sunday schools. They are part of the service.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They have the program for the day or week.


Jean Lesage: As I said the other day when the same question was raised, there are general rules. If these-let me call them bulletins-qualify, if they are published more than four times a year, and if they qualify under the general rules, they will be exempt. Suppose you have one of these bulletins that is issued more than four times a year and it contains only news of what happens in the parish or in the congregation in a community, and if you have some hymns printed on it for the attention of and to induce members of the community to pray, that bulletin would be exempt. There is no doubt about that; but every pamphlet must be examined separately to see whether it comes within the regulations.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: These are in quite common use, Mr. Chairman, and they have always been taxed.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Jean Lesage: I would like to see one and I could tell you-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will get you a whole collection of them. I think very definitely they should be exempt from sales tax because they are part of the service.


Jean Lesage: If the hon. member will get one of these pamphlets or bulletins and take the matter up with me, I shall be delighted to discuss it. She has already brought certain matters to the attention of the department, and she has been quite successful.


William Alfred Robinson: Have we finished the discussion on "Printing and educational"?
Shall we proceed to the next section, "Diplomatic"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if he will tell us how these exemptions are administered, particularly the first one which relates to articles for use of the Governor General. How does the Governor General go about getting the exemption that is accorded to him with respect to the payment of sales tax? Does he pay the tax on the articles and get a refund or, if he goes into a store to get an article, does he get it at a price minus the sales tax? How does it work? At the same time would the parliamentary assistant tell us whether this covers all articles purchased for the use of government house; and what about use elsewhere of articles which the Governor General might purchase.


Jean Lesage: The answer to the question is that this covers what is bought for government house, for the furnishing of government house. The Governor General issues a certificate that the purchase is for his use or the use of government house, and that is the way it is exempt from tax. Now, sir, I draw your attention to the fact that there is no amendment to this part of the schedule and the question which has just been asked-and this is true of other questions-would be more relevant to the administration of the Department of National Revenue. I do not want to enter into a discussion at this point-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think the parliamentary assistant should raise that point. After all, this is a bill which is repealing a schedule and enacting a new one. I submit that since we are enacting a new schedule we have the right to ask questions about any of the items in it.


Jean Lesage: I do not want to quarrel over this, and I agree that we are enacting a new schedule. I was just questioning this way of proceeding for the sake of speeding the business of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It did not work, did it?


Jean Lesage: No, not this time. The question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is more related to the administration of the act and I felt it could be asked of the Minister of National Revenue when his estimates are up. I do not quarrel with it, though, and the Minister of National Revenue is here and will help me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since we are enacting this schedule, we have a right to know how it works. How are these certificates used? Are they used for the purpose of obtaining a refund or are they used in order to make possible the purchase of goods at a lower price than other people pay for them?


Jean Lesage: The certificates are given to the vendor, who claims a refund.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask one question about the second paragraph. There is one line dealing with the governor general, and then there is another paragraph which says:
Articles imported for the personal or official use of . . .
I just wondered if in the first line covering the governor general we should not put in the words, "articles for personal use."


Jean Lesage: Articles for personal or official use?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, the same as the wording used for diplomats.


Jean Lesage: Well, I do not know to what extent it would be correct for us to try to put restrictions upon the representative of Her Majesty the Queen. I do not see why we should say, "Your Excellency, this is only for your personal and official use; you had better be careful." I believe it is much more respectful to use the wording:
Articles for the use of the Governor General.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason I make the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that the United Kingdom high commissioner to Canada is included in the second paragraph, :and the high commissioner is a representative of Her Majesty.


Jean Lesage: No, I am sorry, the United Kingdom high commissioner to Canada is a representative of the government, not of the Queen.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we proceed to the next section, "Certain building materials"?


Percy Chapman Black: Before this section is passed I should like to get confirmation of this fact. As I understand it these building materials, such as brick, plaster, lumber, paint, glass and furnaces, which are important materials, have not been subject to sales
Excise Tax Act
tax in the past. There is no change in this schedule?


Jean Lesage: None at all.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we proceed to "Coverings"?


Mr. Pearkes:: I understand that the term "coverings" includes all kinds of wrappings and packings in connection with every group of articles which may be imported into this country. The wrapping might be around chinaware, for instance. Am I correct in assuming that if the articles in question are admitted free of charge, then there is no sales tax on the actual wrappings which surround those articles?


Jean Lesage: That is correct.


George Randolph Pearkes: But I understand if those articles have to pay sales tax, then the actual wrapping itself is also subject to the tax. It seems to me that most of this wrapping is quite useless. It cannot be sold again. It consists of shavings, wood wool and so forth. Is it really the intention to charge the sales tax on goods which are not saleable and which there is no intention to sell in this country? Some of these wrappings are charged on the invoices at a fairly high rate, and sometimes these invoices show the wrapping separately. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could explain exactly what the situation is, because it does seem to me to be quite unreasonable to charge sales tax on the wrapping for which there is not the slightest use in this country.


Jean Lesage: The sales tax is charged on the duty paid value of the imported article including the wrapping. Suppose you import an article which is in a wooden case, and the total value of the article is, let us say, $5. In order to try to avoid paying the full sales tax you could make two invoices, one invoice for the goods at $1, and one invoice for the wooden case at $4. In this way you would only pay sales tax on $1, and that is the danger. I believe that is one of the main reasons why, for sales tax purposes, the imported article has to be taxed as wrapped.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then provided there is a separate invoice made for the wrapping do I understand there is no sales tax on that wrapping?


Jean Lesage: I just said the contrary. The example I gave was to illustrate one of the difficulties that would arise if the sales tax was not charged on the duty paid value of the imported article as wrapped.


William Alfred Robinson: We shall proceed now to "Fire brick, refractories, etc." and then to "Processing materials".

Yukon Act


Mr. Low:: Will the parliamentary assistant explain the difference between material that is consumed and material that is expended directly in the process?


Jean Lesage: Acids, for instance, are
expended in the manufacture of soap; soda ash used in filtration plants for the filtration and purification of water; bone char used as a filtering agent by sugar refineries of the production of sugar.


Solon Earl Low: And catalysts?


Jean Lesage: Those materials are not completely consumed. There is always something that remains but which cannot be used any more.


Solon Earl Low: Would catalysts also come in that list?


Jean Lesage: Yes.
Schedule III agreed to.


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


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 230, to provide for the government of the Yukon Territory.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, I think we should have from the minister some explanation as to the effect of this bill.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to give that, Mr. Speaker. The main purpose of this bill is to revise and consolidate the Yukon Act. The act is now contained in chapter 215 of the Revised Statutes of Canada and in four amending acts passed in the years 1940, 1941, 1948 and 1951.
Hon. members will recall that in the last amending act provision was made for increasing the number of the members of the council from three to five by establishing two new electoral districts in the Whitehorse area. This change is now effective. The election of the members of the new council took place last summer and the first meeting of the enlarged council was held in October. It will be recalled that the elected council has legislative authority but that it does not have executive authority.
The Yukon Act was first passed in 1898. The last revision was in 1927. With the continued and healthy growth of the territory, especially within the last decade, it is desirable that the act should now be revised. The
[The Deputy Chairman.]
legislative powers conferred upon the commissioner in council by the present act are in most respects similar to those conferred upon provincial legislatures. There are, however, several subjects over which the provinces have jurisdiction and with respect to which it is now proposed to confer jurisdiction upon the commissionex in council. These are roads, wills, the property of married women, coroners and inquests, controverted elections, the establishment and maintenance of hospitals, and agriculture. At the present time all these matters are within the jurisdiction of parliament, and cannot be legislated upon by the commissioner in council. It is proposed to drop from the act the sections relating to them, and appropriate ordinances will be enacted by the Yukon council.
There are in the present act a number of sections relating to criminal matters. Appropriate equivalent sections will be contained in the new Criminal Code. These are therefore no longer necessary in the Yukon Act and authority is being sought to drop them.
The bill would confer jurisdiction upon the commissioner in council to make ordinances for the borrowing of money by the commissioner for the purpose of meeting the annual expenditures pending the receipt of territorial revenues. For example, difficulty has been experienced in financing the yearly bulk purchases of liquor stocks. This will be overcome if power is given to the commissioner to borrow the necessary funds for such purpose. Again, the bill seeks to give the commissioner in council the right to pass ordinances authorizing the commissioner to borrow money for the purpose of making loans to municipalities for the construction of municipal works, and to authorize him to make such loans. It is proposed, however, that no money shall be borrowed or lent without the approval of the governor in council.
Authority is also being sought to give the commissioner the right to hold land for the beneficial use of the territory. As hon. members know, all crown lands in the territory are under the administration of the federal government and are in the name of the crown in the right of Canada. In carrying on the government of the territory it is necessary for the commissioner to hold or acquire land for territorial purposes, such as property required for public buildings, schools, hospitals and other works. At present no such authority exists.
Another section of the bill would confer upon the governor in council the power to make regulations concerning reindeer. They are the property of the federal government and therefore are not within the legislative

powers of the commissioner in council. While all the herds of reindeer are now located in the Northwest Territories, it may be that in the future it will be expedient to move some of them into the Yukon. In such an event regulations will be required to provide for their control and management.
In recent years a number of interesting archaeological discoveries have been made in the Yukon and no doubt there will be many more in the years to come. It is desirable that the sites should be preserved, and the bill therefore seeks authority to give the governor in council the right to pass regulations for this purpose.
There are several other minor amendments which members will note as the various sections are reviewed by the committee of the whole. I might add, however, that in carrying out the revision of the act we have attempted to have it follow the pattern of the new Northwest Territories Act which was enacted at the last session of parliament. The bill before us contains 54 sections. Of these only 14 either are new or embody substantial changes from the present act. The remaining 40 sections are intended chiefly to effect the consolidation. They embody no substantial change from the provisions of the present act.
The present act with amendments to date contains 132 sections. Seventy-four sections are being dropped. As mentioned, the sections refer to criminal law, married women's property, wills, coroners and jurors and other miscellaneous subjects.
The Yukon Territory is an area rich in natural resources. Prospecting is active and interesting discoveries are being made. It also has one of the most fascinating histories of any part of Canada and it seems important to provide the type of legislation which will encourage its growth and development and at the same time protect the reminders of its colourful past.
Hon. members who have noted the number of times they have been invited in recent years to amend legislation affecting our north country will I am sure regard this bill as a further indication of the government's interest on behalf of the people of Canada in this vast and increasingly important area.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know much about the Yukon. I have heard of the trail of '98, and I know that, as the minister has said, it is a country that has stirred the imagination of people who have read the poems of Service; but principally we associate it with gold mining and, as he says, with reindeer.
Yukon Act
It seems to me that an act of this kind which is so fundamental, being a new constitution for the territory, should more properly be considered by a committee than in the whole house. I am wondering whether there is any such committee to which this bill could be referred so it might be considered section by section.
I realize that the revision contains many sections which are in the existing bill and which would need little consideration; but it seems to me that the new sections are different and comprehensive and cannot easily be considered in committee of the whole house. I therefore wonder whether a measure which is so important as is this should not be referred to a committee. I believe the progress would be rapid, and I think the result would be more satisfactory to the people concerned if it were considered in that manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct a question to the minister purely from the point of view of obtaining some information in connection with the bill itself. What is the present population of the Yukon Territory? The reason I ask the question is this. I suppose that to the population up there there are disadvantages to being created a province. I am not advocating that procedure because I am not in a position to do so; I do not know the situation well enough. But I am wondering what the disadvantages are, both with respect to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, from the standpoint of incorporation as a province and generally what the governing factors are in this question as to a territory becoming a province. What do the government or the people themselves regard as the governing factor in that decision?


Robert Henry Winters: The population of the Yukon territory, as revealed by the 1951 census, was 9,096. Of this total approximately 1,500 were natives. The governing factor as to whether or not these territories should be considered on a basis of provincial status is whether or not they can afford normal provincial services. Both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories are vast in extent but contain a relatively small number of people, and a relatively smaller proportionate revenue is derived from normal sources.
They simply cannot finance the type of services the other provinces have come to expect. I believe the only way they can be

Yukon Act
financed adequately for the time being is by all the people of Canada through the federal government.


Gordon Graydon: I think that answers the inquiry. I had the idea that the population of the Yukon was greater than that; otherwise I would not have asked the question. What is the population of the Northwest Territories?


Robert Henry Winters: It is of the order of 10,000, speaking from memory.


George Randolph Pearkes: Having spent three very happy years in the Yukon as a young man I am delighted to see that the progress of that part of Canada has justified the bringing in of this new legislation. I am certain it will be of great benefit to the Yukon. Undoubtedly that area has progressed a long way since the trail of '98.
Perhaps the determining factor in the future development of the Yukon will be water power, rather than gold. Does this legislation give full control over water power within the Yukon to the council or to the minister? I am convinced that water power is the essence of the future development of the Yukon.


Robert Henry Winters: No change is contemplated in the control over water power. The authority rests in the parliament of Canada to make regulations respecting water power in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


William Joseph Browne: What is the area of the Yukon Territory? I notice that the schedule sets out dimensions, description and location, but not the area.


Robert Henry Winters: The land area of the Yukon Territory is 207,076 square miles.


William Joseph Browne: What are the names of the commissioners?


Robert Henry Winters: The commissioner of the Yukon Territory is Mr. Brown. There are five elected members of the council, as follows: Carmacks, Mr. A. R. Hayes; Mayo, Mr. A. Berry; Dawson, Mr. V. C. Mellor; Whitehorse East, Mr. J. L. Phelps; Whitehorse West, Mr. F. D. Locke.


William Joseph Browne: What connection has Major General Young with the Yukon administration?


Robert Henry Winters: Major General Young is deputy minister of the Department of Resources and Development. Under the Yukon Act the administration of the Yukon is by instructions given the commissioner from time to time by the governor in council or the minister. Through that connection the deputy minister of the department is in 
constant touch with the administration of the Yukon Territory.


Percy Chapman Black: Who has the
responsibility and authority in connection with areas in that territory containing gold and other minerals? Are those areas administered by the commissioner and members of the council, or by the department here in Ottawa?


Robert Henry Winters: Gold mining comes under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, a federal statute. Placer mining of gold comes under another federal statute, the Yukon Placer Mining Act. Other mining operations come under the Territorial Lands Act, a federal statute having application in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Percy Chapman Black: What revenues are collected within the territories that are available to the commissioner and members of the council? What additional funds are required and authorized by parliament, and assigned to the commissioner and his associates, to carry out their responsibilities?


Robert Henry Winters: In 1951, the last year for which I have statistics, revenues amounted to $1,848,000, while total federal expenditures were $5,626,000.


Percy Chapman Black: I understand that the $1,848,000 was raised by the commissioner and his council within the territory, and that that amount was available for expenditure by them. Then there was a further appropriation by this parliament amounting to around $4 million. For what purpose was it used?


Robert Henry Winters: It is used for the normal provincial expenditures on highways and the like. Highway costs are very high, in relation to the number of people using them and the vast area covered. There has been an extensive program of highway construction, including the great highway from Whitehorse to Mayo. We are now trying to extend that from Stewart Crossing, near Mayo, to Dawson city. Then there are further expenditures for welfare, education, and all those other items found in the provinces.


Percy Chapman Black: Would the minister give the expenditures under the headings of highways, education, and any others there may be, through which the $5 million is used?


Robert Henry Winters: For the fiscal year 1952, for example, the expenditures on the Yukon council were $11,875; for territorial offices,

$56,569; education, $177,224; public works, $39,447; health and public welfare, $238,476; municipal administration, $79,374; game and publicity, $18,270; general and unforeseen, $10,051; department of roads and bridges, $484,025.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Administration of the government.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister state where the line is drawn between instructions given to the commissioner by the governor in council and instructions given to the commissioner by the minister?


Robert Henry Winters: In practice the instructions given by the minister would be those having to do with administration, and not normally having to do with fundamental questions of policy. If there are policy decisions to be made, they are normally referred to the commissioner by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Appointment of administrator.
William Joseph Browne: Does
"absence" mean absence from the territory?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.'
On section 7-Salaries.
Solon Earl Low: What is the present salary of the commissioner?


Robert Henry Winters: The salary of the commissioner is approximately $6,000.


William Joseph Browne: Reference is made to the salary of the commissioner and of the administrator. If the position of administrator is to be temporary, should he be paid compensation or remuneration rather than salary?


Robert Henry Winters: If there is an administrator he would be paid a salary. During the time I have been responsible for the administration of the Yukon it has not been necessary to appoint an administrator.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What was the purpose of making provision for an administrator? Is it contemplated that at some time the commissioner and council might be superseded by an administrator appointed by the governor in council?


Robert Henry Winters: The provision is made in the event of absence from the territory for any
Yukon Act
reason of the commissioner, in which event the government would be under the direction of the administrator.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Seat of government.
Percy Chapman Black: Where is the present seat of government for the territory?


Robert Henry Winters: The present seat is at Whitehorse.


Frank Sidney Follwell: Is there any reason to expect that it may be changed from time to time?


Robert Henry Winters: There may be reason to change the seat of government, although I would not say it might be necessary from time to time. As hon. members know, for many years the seat of government was at Dawson, which was the centre of activities following the gold rush of 1898. At one time Dawson was one of the largest cities in Canada. Its population has receded until there are now only a few hundred people. On the other hand Whitehorse has grown markedly in population. Being on the Alaska highway it is the centre of communication and much more accessible. The administration of the Yukon can be carried out much more expeditiously, efficiently and economically from Whitehorse than from Dawson. Several years ago it was decided to move the administrative headquarters from Dawson to Whitehorse, and that move was made recently.


Gordon Graydon: Whitehorse is where George and Martha Black live.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Sittings separate from commissioner; sanction of bills.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that a change is being made in the wording of this section and I wonder if that indicates a change in practice. Perhaps I can get my point over by asking a question. Does the commissioner in practice assent automatically to bills passed by the council in the way the governor general and lieutenant governors assent to federal and provincial legislation, or does he exercise the prerogative of veto on instructions from the minister?


Robert Henry Winters: Under the existing legislation the commissioner has the power of veto, but we think he should not have that power, that that should be reserved to the governor in council. The change is being made accordingly in this bill. In my experience there has been no occasion on which he has exercised the power of veto.

Yukon Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the reason for the change?


Robert Henry Winters: That is the reason for the change.


William Joseph Browne: Has the
minister studied the form of commission government under which Newfoundland operated from 1934 to 1949? I think he would get some ideas from such a study. That commission consisted of six men with the governor sitting in as chairman. I notice that here the commissioner does not sit in with the council. He is supposed to be a man especially selected by the governor in council and should be the ablest man of the lot because of his special qualifications. Probably he would come from outside the territory. The other men are going to be elected by popular ballot and they may benefit from some person of experience to help -them and make suggestions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you believe in
democracy?


William Joseph Browne: Certainly I believe in democracy, but I believe also in precedent. Here we have a council of five members, and then in the next section provision is being made for a Speaker. A majority of the council would be three members who, including the Speaker, would constitute a quorum. I think it is worth considering having the commissioner preside at council meetings.


Robert Henry Winters: We have considered that and decided that the best operations would result if the commissioner did not sit in with the council. Perhaps the main difference between this council and the one that acted in Newfoundland is that in this instance it has no executive authority, its authority being legislative only.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Quorum.
Stanley Howard Knowles: How does the Speaker get appointed? I have looked at the act and can find no reference to the Speaker in the definitions or anywhere else.


Robert Henry Winters: The Speaker is appointed by the council and is one of the members of the council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should not there be some provision for that? It just seems as though he is picked out of thin air.


William Joseph Browne: Has the
minister power under the act to issue general instructions as to procedure in connection with such things as the election of the

Speaker? I think it would be wise to have something of that kind.


Robert Henry Winters: I suppose under the general authority given to the minister that could be done, but we have left it to the council to conduct its own business and to devise ways of doing so. That has been found to be satisfactory. Leaving to the council the right to select a chairman or, as we call it here, a Speaker, has worked satisfactorily. There has been no question about it so far and I am sure there will not be.


Gordon Graydon: Would the minister take another look at this section to see whether there should not be something added before the word "Speaker"? I am somewhat impressed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am simply trying to be helpful. It may be there should be something that has just been left out.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to do that. There is no change from the existing act in that respect, but I do not believe the hon. member for Peel would wish the legislation held up on that account. I will look into that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister the other act there? I see that the explanatory note on the opposite page says there is no change in substance. Has the minister the actual wording of the previous section 16?


Robert Henry Winters: The previous section 16 read as follows:
A majority of the council, including the Speaker, shall form a quorum.


William Joseph Browne: Might I suggest that there might be a subsection 3 added to clause 9 which would read something like this, that the person obtaining the largest majority should be the Speaker, or that the council shall have the power to elect a chairman or Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: The word "Speaker" in section 13 is not the most appropriate term that could be used for a council of this size. The word "Speaker" is used for the officer presiding over a parliament or other body having the functions of a parliament. In this case I think the term "chairman" would be much more appropriate both with respect to the functions which the council has to discharge and the number of members on the council. A chairman chosen from one of their number would be much more fitting, so far as the term is concerned, than "Speaker".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 14-Governor in council may prescribe the qualifications of electors, candidates, etc.
Percy Chapman Black: This clause seems to grant very exceptional powers. I should like the minister to explain why they are necessary. The clause reads in part as follows:
-the commissioner in council may prescribe the qualifications of those entitled to vote at an election of members of the council and of those eligible for nomination and election as members of the council and the reasons for or matters by which an elected member may be or become disqualified from being or sitting as a member of the council.
Under our system of government it would seem to me that very autocratic powers are being granted to the commissioner in council.
I should like the minister to explain why they are necessary and why the bill could not set out the qualifications required. I should like to know why this power should be left to the commissioner and his associates.


Robert Henry Winters: Hon. members will recall that when the Northwest Territories bill went through the same question was raised. It was considered at that time that if we were going to have what is in effect a local legislature they should have responsibility for and authority over those things that normally fall within the jurisdiction of a local legislature to the greatest extent possible. The qualifications of voters is one of them. The existing legislation reads as follows:
The commissioner in council may prescribe the qualifications of those entitled to vote at an election of members to the council . . .
And so on. We are seeking no powers that were not there before, nor are we seeking any powers that do not normally fall within the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature, or in fact a legislature of this kind which is an elected legislature for these purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Sessional indemnity and expenses of members.
Percy Chapman Black: I see that fees up to $50 per day are being provided for the remuneration of the members of the council. Under these circumstances that would seem to me to be a rather excessive allowance. I think most members would agree that if the commissioners have to travel any distance they should be reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses, but it would appear to me that $50 a day is excessive.


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member knows, living expenses in the Yukon are perhaps higher than in other parts of Canada. This is simply bringing the allowance into line with that provided in the case of the Northwest
Yukon Act
Territories bill which hon. members passed last year and which established a rate of $50 per day for the Northwest Territories council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Legislative powers.
Donald MacInnis: I notice that subsection (g) of clause 16 deals with the solemnization of marriage in the territory. Then subsection (n) deals with the conferring of jurisdiction in matters of alimony upon the court. How is the question of divorce dealt with in the Yukon Territory? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that possibly the law of the old days, when the other fellow was shot, would cover the situation. That might do, but that question must arise because provision is made for jurisdiction in matters of alimony.


Robert Henry Winters: I must confess that I am not clear on the full answer to that. There is no change from the existing legislation, and I have not gone into it very thoroughly with that in mind.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister see what information he can get?


Robert Henry Winters: I will do that.


William Joseph Browne: Subsection (r) has an explanatory note saying there is no change in substance. Can the minister tell me what change has been made in subsection (r) from the former section 28?


Robert Henry Winters: The former section 28 reads as follows:
The commissioner in council shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education; but it shall therein always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the territory or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and in such case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.


Donald MacInnis: Has the minister received any representations as to the ability or inability of the people in the territory to raise sufficient funds for educational purposes? How is secondary education handled, or is there any such thing as secondary education in the territory? Has the minister had any representations as to any difficulties experienced by the residents of the territories in providing adequate educational facilities?

Yukon Act


Robert Henry Winters: No, I have had no representations as to the adequacy or otherwise of revenues for education. In Whitehorse, for example, where quite a large percentage of the population is composed of service personnel, the government contributes on a per capita basis to education both in the primary and secondary schools.


Solon Earl Low: Including the capital costs?


Robert Henry Winters: Including capital cost. Otherwise we have had no representations.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask if there are combined Indian and white schools in the Yukon on the same basis as there are in British Columbia.


Robert Henry Winters: There are, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I might seek to answer the question asked a moment ago by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East, and to which the minister did not seem to know the answer. If one looks ahead to sections 31 and 35 of the act he will find that the court in the Yukon Territory is given authority in all civil cases, and so on, and apparently that must include divorces; because when you read section 35 you find that the court of appeal for the Yukon Territory is the court of appeal for the province of British Columbia. Section 35 (2) (g) refers to actions for divorce or judicial separation as being amongst the classes of cases that can be dealt with from the court of the Yukon in the appeal court of British Columbia. Apparently divorces from the Yukon Territory do not come here to parliament because they have their own court.


William Joseph Browne: I would like an answer to that question if the minister can find one. I do not believe there is any divorce in the Yukon because there is no power for it.


Robert Henry Winters: I am told that the governing section is section 22 which reads:
Subject to the provisions of this act, the laws relating to civil and criminal matters and the ordinances in force in the Northwest Territories on the 13th day of June, 1898, shall be and remain in force in the territory, in so far as the same are applicable thereto, and in so far as the same have not been or are not hereafter repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada, or by any ordinance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
On section 19-Borrowing.
Percy Chapman Black: Before section 19 carries, may I ask the minister whether any moneys have been borrowed up to the present time under the act?
[Mr. Maclnnis.l


Robert Henry Winters: There have been no moneys borrowed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
On section 35-Meaning of court of appeal.
William Joseph Browne: On section 35, has the minister found out whether in the Northwest Territories there is power for divorce?


Robert Henry Winters: There is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 36 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
On section 45-Power to hold lands.
George Randolph Pearkes: Do the lands covered in section 45 carry the mineral rights?


Robert Henry Winters: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 46 agreed to.
On section 47-Manufacture and importation of intoxicants.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he can tell us what the present situation is with respect to the manufacture, compounding or importing into the Yukon Territory of intoxicants. I note that according to this provision, which is more or less the same as it was previously, intoxicants are not allowed into the territory except by permission of the commissioner. I gather that this is not a question that is left to the decision of the territorial council but rather it is a decision made by the commissioner, which in effect means that decisions in this matter are made here in Ottawa. Can the minister say what the present situation is in that regard?


Robert Henry Winters: As hon. members may remember, two years ago, I think, there was a change made in the Yukon Act to enable intoxicating liquors to be manufactured in the Yukon Territory under the authority of the commissioner in council. That was intended to bring the authority into line with that prevailing in all other provinces in Canada and in the Northwest Territories. There have been no instances where liquor has been manufactured there, so the clause has not been applicable. It has been decided that for administrative purposes it would be very difficult to summon the council to deal with instances should they occur. It is quite different from the situation here, where it is easy to assemble the council. For this reason

it was found administratively desirable to delegate the authority to the commissioner.


Solon Earl Low: Can the minister say what kind of control is exercised over the distribution of liquor in the territory?


Robert Henry Winters: It is distributed there in the same manner it is distributed in the provinces of Canada, through liquor stores under control of the government.


Solon Earl Low: And the commissioner is looked upon as the control officer?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Did I understand the minister to say there have been no instances of liquor being manufactured in the Yukon?


Robert Henry Winters: What I meant to say was that there have been no instances since the legislation was changed two years "ago, instances that have come to our attention.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 48 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On section 53-Export of gold without payment of royalty. *
Percy Chapman Black: I would like to ask the minister for more particulars respecting the authority for mining and the royalties that are payable upon gold that is exported out of the territory. How much are the royalties and what have they amounted to per year over the past five years?


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if I might get that information and provide it to the hon. gentleman?


Percy Chapman Black: In the meantime could the minister state what royalty is charged on gold that is procured in this territory?


Robert Henry Winters: If I may I will provide that information later too.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 54-Coming into force.
William Joseph Browne: The question I was going to ask is covered in the note on section 54:
As many provisions relating to criminal law are in the present act, the new act must come into force on the day the Criminal Code is proclaimed.
That is quite definite. It will depend upon the passage of the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Water Resources
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


An hon. Member:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WATER RESOURCES


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. 109, to authorize the grant of assistance to a province for the conservation of water resources.


Mr. Herridge:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I should say a few words about the purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker. While the bill itself is relatively short, I believe it is of great importance to Canada. Its effects can be both far-reaching and long-lasting.
The conservation of natural resources within the provinces is primarily a provincial responsibility, and there is no desire or intention on the part of the federal government to invade that jurisdiction. The bill is drafted accordingly. Its basic purpose is to enable the federal government to assist provincial governments in carrying out measures of a major character designed to conserve their water resources, and at the same time reduce the hazard of serious flooding.
The interest of the government of Canada in conservation has found expression in the past in a number of important measures which were designed to assist the provinces in respect to special projects of major importance, or to assist them in problems of such wide scope that the finding of a solution was in the national interest. Included among these measures have been the Canada Forestry Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act, and the National Parks Act. The results that have been achieved through these acts are well known. I believe all hon. members will agree that Canada has benefited substantially through their operation, and that these benefits will continue to increase as time passes.
We have heard many excellent addresses in this house in the past few years on various

Water Resources
phases of the vast field of conservation. In almost every case it was the expressed wish that more might be done to ensure the conservation of Canada's resources for the continuing benefit of the present and future citizens of our country. It has been pointed out many times that the interests of conservation are quite often opposed to the immediate interests of financial gain, and that too often our resources have been sacrificed for profit.
We all know of many examples where human neglect or lack of knowledge or faulty practices have in the past resulted in forested land being laid waste and farm land turned to desert. We have seen torrents of water pouring down the river valleys from areas denuded of vegetation, to wreak destruction in the cities and towns below. We have seen, too, the dried-up stream beds in heat of summer and urban populations spending large sums in search for adequate water supplies.
Public consciousness of the need for conservation, and of the inherent dangers that lie in faulty practices in the conservation field, has grown with the years. I am sure it is safe to say that the people of Canada are now more conservation-minded than at at any time in our history. The realization of the problem on the part of every citizen is, I believe, the most important factor in achieving the ultimate goal where our renewable resources will be managed in such a manner that they will be, as nearly as possible, available in perpetuity. We have come a long way already from the early days when our resources were looked upon as inexhaustible. This progress has been made through the efforts of public-spirited and farsighted men in all walks of life, in private industry and at every level of government.
The bill which is before us today for consideration is intended as a further step toward conserving our resources, and toward alleviating the damages that have already been suffered. The bill seeks authority for the government of Canada to grant financial assistance to provincial governments for the construction of major water conservation projects. Assistance of the nature contemplated has already been given by Canada through special votes of parliament to various projects which were outside the scope of existing conservation acts. These projects, which included the Luther marsh and Shand dams in the Grand river watershed in Ontario, and the Fanshawe dam on the Thames river north of London, were considered to be of sufficient importance that federal participation was warranted.
[Mr. Winters.!	,
Subject to funds being voted by parliament, we have also informed the government of Ontario that the federal government would assist financially in the construction of a conservation dam on the Conestogo river. My contacts with the government of Ontario on these water conservation measures have been with the minister of planning and development. In each of these special cases a formula has been used whereby the local municipalities affected agreed to pay 25 per cent of the cost, and the provincial and federal governments undertook to pay 37J per cent each; in other words, to share the remaining 75 per cent on a dollar for dollar basis.
The bill now before the house is intended to place this type of assistance on a statutory basis, and thus make it available to all provincial governments. The bill provides for federal contributions up to 37J per cent of the cost of major water conservation projects, with the remaining portion of the cost being borne by the provincial government concerned or jointly by the provincial government and the local municipalities affected. The bill also provides, however, that the contribution of the federal government shall not be greater than that of the provincial government.
This approach to the problem is designed to leave the prime responsibility with the provinces, to whom it has been assigned by the British North America Act, and yet provide sufficient assistance to encourage the undertaking of necessary projects which might not otherwise be carried out. The limitation to projects which are, in the opinion of the governor in council, of a major character will ensure that the taxpayers of all of Canada will participate only in those projects which are of sufficient importance to be of national concern, and which the province could not reasonably be expected to carry out alone.
Hon. members will notice that the bill envisages an agreement in respect to each project, and it is proposed that this agreement shall be between the government of Canada and the government of the province. The bill recognizes, however, that local authorities may be set up within the provinces to deal with particular conservation areas or problems. In fact a number of local authorities have already been established under provincial jurisdiction. These local authorities may actually undertake the work on behalf of their provincial goverhments, and in many cases share in the cost. In these instances there will in all probability be subsidiary agreements between the provincial governments and the municipalities or local authorities covering the terms of their participation.

However, this is a matter for provincial governments and their municipalities to decide.
Sir Clifford Sifton, who is recognized as having been one of Canada's greatest authorities on conservation, pointed out that artificial works can only supplement the place of nature in the regulation of stream flow. While the immediate works envisaged under the terms of this bill will be dams to regulate flow and lessen the danger of disastrous flash floods, it is fully recognized that the construction of dams alone will neither prevent floods nor achieve adequate conservation of the water resources of an area. The restoration of forest cover and other conservation measures in the drainage areas of the rivers are normally required. We have stressed these broader features in all our dealings to date with provincial governments. A most important feature of the Canada water conservation assistance bill, therefore, is the provision for the undertaking by the provinces of ancillary conservation measures in conjunction with projects receiving federal assistance. These ancillary measures will be carried out in all cases except where it is determined by careful study, to the mutual satisfaction of both the federal and provincial governments, that they are not required.
The importance of this provision cannot be overemphasized. It will ensure that any project to which federal assistance may be given will be a component part of an integrated conservation plan for the area in which the project is located. This provision will serve also to encourage the development of broad plans to embrace many fields of conservation in a given area.
I would like to point out that this bill and the Canada Forestry Act will, in effect, be complementary to each other in many instances. When a province wishes to undertake the construction of a water conservation project, and submits a detailed plan of the proposed over-all conservation measures in the area concerned, this plan will be studied with a view to assistance being given under the Canada Forestry Act with respect to reforestation, as well as under the provisions of the bill now before us. Where the ancillary conservation measures include reforestation, that work may be eligible for assistance under the terms of the Canada Forestry Act. In this way, the Canada water conservation assistance bill would also give encouragement to the provinces in the use of the Canada Forestry Act. Hon. members will note that the two main points of programs envisaged by this legislation have to do with water and forest cover, and that both are within the scope of the Department of Resources 68108-2231
Water Resources
and Development through its engineering and water resources branch and its forestry branch. No addition to present staff is envisaged because of this bill.
I wish to stress once again that this proposed legislation is purely enabling in character, and that it does not seek to establish any change in jurisdiction or responsibility. The government of Canada would grant financial assistance under this legislation only after a formal request had been received from the province concerned. The federal government will have no proprietary interest in any of the works to which it contributes.
We have before us legislation which would for the first time offer broad federal assistance to the provinces on a definite basis for the conservation of their water resources. If approved by parliament it will help to round out a really worth-while and comprehensive program aimed at the conservation of Canada's natural resources. As I mentioned earlier, Canadians in all walks of life are becoming daily more conscious of conservation. We already have examples of successful projects that have been undertaken in the water resources conservation field in a similar manner to that provided for by this bill. I feel that these practical examples give evidence that the time has now been reached when federal assistance on a statutory basis can be extended with the firm expectancy that great return to Canada as a whole will be received from the investment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill, although when I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) looking at me I feel that it is almost sinful to speak at this time.
I must congratulate the minister, first of all, on his statement and his clear C.C.F. analysis of what private enterprise has done in some cases to the natural resources of this country. This group certainly supports this bill as a further step forward in the development of what we hope will finally be an over-all conservation policy for Canada, and we are pleased indeed that the bill provides for ancillary conservation, the relation of the conservation of water resources with the conservation of forest resources and so on. But, Mr. Speaker, my main reason for rising at this time is to say that we are disappointed to know that the provisions of this bill do not include a clause to provide for river bank protection from damage as the result of erosion on navigable rivers.
I mention this matter because this question of erosion or damage from erosion is an extremely serious one to many parts of the constituency I represent, and is of increasing

Water Resources
concern to an increasing number of people. It is of concern to the corporation of the city of Trail where, as will be remembered, in 1948 a serious disaster was just averted by prompt action on the part of citizens, the union and the company. It was a co-operative effort to prevent something that might have been extremely serious indeed to that city and to other communities along the Columbia river and the Arrow lakes. But while that disaster at that time was averted, that threat still exists because the federal, provincial and municipal authorities have failed to accept their responsibilities to do something about it.
There are also, in the Creston area of my constituency, a considerable number of farmers who suffer damage from erosion to the banks of the Kootenay river. As a matter of fact there are some 17.3 miles of the banks of the Kootenay river within my constituency. Year after year these farmers suffer considerable damage and are threatened with serious damage, again as a result of no action being taken on the part of the federal and provincial governments to devise a policy to meet that threat and that situation. It is a constant problem to these people; it is a constant expense; and to the people farming reclaimed land it represents a constant danger.
The farmers of whom I am speaking have reclaimed some 15,000 acres of bottom land that was producing no wealth whatever a few years ago. As a result of the initiative of these people in that community and in surrounding districts, those 15,000 acres of land have been brought into production and are producing a great deal of wealth in the form of grain, forage and other crops, and provide a considerable amount of fodder for a number of cattle. This production has brought prosperity to the district, and has provided a considerable sum in additional taxes to the federal and provincial coffers. Yet nothing is done about this problem which is such a serious one to many of my constituents on the Columbia and the Kootenay rivers.
I am constantly receiving letters about the matter. I just want to quote briefly from a letter I received from a gentleman who has been prominent in reclamation work in Creston throughout the years and who speaks for those who are greatly concerned about the constant waste and loss occasioned by the erosion caused by the floods on the Kootenay river.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I was looking up some of the government reports in this connection, and there is no question about it that on the banks of navigable rivers the
[Air. Herridge.l
federal government is recognized as the riparian owner and has some legal responsibility, as well as a moral responsibility. This gentleman, Mr. Guy Constable, whom a great many people throughout British Columbia know and whom I am sure the officials of the department will know quite well, wrote me a two-page letter quite recently about this situation, and I am going to quote two short paragraphs. He says:
Certainly a national policy embracing water and soil must straighten out the ownership of water as between the dominion and the provinces and the responsibility for river erosion which is becoming every year more serious, and that brings me to the purpose of this letter primarily.
He goes on to deal with the problem of river erosion. Then he goes on to deal with a situation which they face at the present time and the present policy of local people as a result of that erosion. In this paragraph of his letter he says:
The present policy is and has been up to now, to draw back the dikes and reconstruct them further away from the river. It is a losing policy in every way, almost one of despair, wasteful of land and effort, and of money since it is not a corrective. I think it parallels the situation I have described as to irrigation. Reclamation of wet lands is a national benefit, and the land cannot bear the whole cost when adjacent to navigable waterways.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that not only does that situation exist in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, but it is one that we find in many places in Canada. I have been reading what literature I could get in this connection in recent months, and I happened to have in my hands recently the report of the select committee on conservation, 1950, for Ontario. I note that this problem is dealt with at some length in this booklet and I am going to quote one short paragraph, because I think it states our argument in this group which is that the federal government should accept responsibility for initiating a policy that will overcome, as a result of federal, provincial and, in some cases, municipal co-operation, the damage caused by erosion. I now quote from page 114 of this report of the select committee on conservation:
This problem, it should be noted, is not unique in this province. It is world-wide. European countries, particularly Denmark, the Netherlands and England, have been fighting erosion from the seas for centuries. It is a most pressing problem on the American shores of lakes Ontario, Erie and Michigan, and along the entire lengths of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts.
The problem reached such proportions that the government of the United States set up within the war department, in the office of the chief of engineers of the United States army, a beach erosion board which has been carrying on research and giving leadership in the combating of shore erosion in that country.

Losses through shore erosion have today reached a point where they can no longer be considered the responsibility of the individual person whose land is affected, but rather, because of the federal government's control of navigable waters, a problem to be considered jointly by the dominion and provincial governments and the municipality concerned. This committee therefore recommends that:
The dominion, provincial and municipal government's should recognize the public responsibility for assistance in lakeshore erosion prevention.
We in this group say amen to those conclusions. No effective action has been taken in any country until a governing body with sufficient influence and financial resources has taken the lead to do something about the erosion situation. This is a long-term problem in Canada, an increasing problem; and once again I say that we in this group regret very much that there is no provision in the bill for at least a start on the part of the government on this most important problem, a very serious one to Canadians in various parts of Canada.
It is a long-time problem, but no action has been taken to date. It is time something was done. If the minister does not see fit to introduce an amendment to the bill that would remedy the situation, we would urge his department to give consideration to the problem as it exists in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with a view to taking steps to improve the situation in the very near future.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss this bill at length this afternoon. Let me say briefly that, in principle, this party is in agreement.
Those of us who live along the Grand river appreciate the assistance given by this government and by the provincial government in the building of the Shand dam and the Luther dam; and we feel now that the Glen Allan dam on the Conestogo will improve the flood situation considerably in the Grand river valley.
In my view this bill has more to do with flood control than with water conservation. I had hoped it might include more in respect of water conservation, but it is to be noted that it does make reference to reforestation. However, there is much more to water conservation than simply the building of dams and a program of reforestation.
We already have on the statute books the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture. I feel that the large number of officials and engineers in that department might have dealt effectively with this legislation, as there would seem to be a good deal of duplication.
Water Resources
Many P.F.R.A. employees are connected with this kind of work in the west, and I am convinced that they could have made themselves responsible for it across the whole nation. I question therefore the wisdom of not placing this bill under that department. As I said earlier, we accept the principle of the bill, although we had hoped that it would have contained further provisions for water and soil conservation. I have no further comment to make at the moment. Any questions I may have may better be asked at a later time.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking at length in this debate, but as one who has been interested for years in conservation I believe I should take this opportunity to say a word in commendation of what the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) has done in bringing this bill before the house.
Although he is one of the younger members of the government, I wish to congratulate him upon his vision and foresight, and upon his ability to gather from his observations and studies the importance of things people in Canada are thinking, and feeling should be done, and especially at this time I would commend him for bringing a bill of this kind before the house with a view to making statutory some of the arrangements that had been made hitherto only by agreement between the federal and provincial governments. Let me commend him and congratulate him warmly and sincerely for what he is doing.
We may not agree that the bill is everything we would want, but I am always happy to see a start made. I do not look upon this start as encompassing the whole scope of what will be encompassed eventually in legislation of this kind. Doubtless changes will be made, and in all likelihood as the years and sessions go by members will bring to the minister's attention changes that should be made in the act to enlarge its scope.
I am happy that, through the action he is taking today, the minister is giving leadership in the field of conservation. That is important. The last time I spoke on this subject I believe I said leadership ought to come from a senior government in Canada. That leadership is now coming from the point from which it should come, and this gives me considerable satisfaction.
I do not look upon this legislation as being exclusively Social Credit legislation in any respect; nor do I think the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has any logical basis for saying that it is C.C.F.

Water Resources
legislation. Yet I was interested in what the hon. member did say about the exploitation of our natural resources by private enterprise. We hear that so constantly from socialist members; that private enterprise has done this, that private enterprise has been responsible for that, or has been responsible for not doing the other thing.
In other words, at every opportunity that presents itself they try to undermine private enterprise. Let me point out that if any of the resources of this country have been exploited wrongfully by private enterprise, and if there has been wastage or destruction in that exploitation, it has not been the fault of private enterprise so much as that of the government that has allowed it to take place.
Governments in the various provinces are presumed to own and control the resources for and on behalf of the people. If adverse exploitation has taken place in any of the provinces it has been because of a lack of watchfulness and good management by government. That ought to be stressed. It is because of wrong policies on the part of governments that these things have happened. No one can say that it is private enterprise and because private enterprise is faulty in its concept of what should be done.
I want to say that I believe in private enterprise. I believe that we should take every action possible to preserve private enterprise as being the best possible means of getting the finest results in any of our activities, and to manage and build up our economy. I wanted to say that much because when we hear these repetitions about the failings and weaknesses of private enterprise it sort of gives me a sick feeling at my midriff.
As the minister gains experience in administering this bill and dealing with the provinces I hope he will find it possible to enlarge the scope of the legislation to include something along the line mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), that is the prevention of erosion. We suffer from erosion, not only of river banks but generally throughout large areas. I think sometimes we overlook the fact that erosion of land occurs over such a wide area that the province concerned, or at least some provinces, might not have the resources to cope with it. No doubt in some cases they would have to come to the senior government for help.
That principle has been recognized to a considerable extent in connection with irrigation schemes to prevent further damage by erosion. However, I am quite sure that soil erosion is caused by other things than wind

and water. I am expressing the hope that in the years ahead the minister will find it possible to enter into agreements with certain provincial governments to provide assistance in putting a stop to widespread causes of erosion which the provinces cannot handle themselves. I shall end by saying that I think the minister has made an excellent start, and I commend him for it.


William Joseph Browne: When this matter was first announced in the speech from the throne I made a study of water conservation. It seems to me that this bill is putting into general effect what has been the policy in connection with Ontario. Several projects costing millions of dollars have been carried out in this province. I do not know if similar projects have been carried out in other provinces.
I was wondering hoyv far the minister had thought out this thing and whether this legislation will be available to all the provinces. On reading the report of the Department of Resources and Development I noticed that very little has been done in my province, and I suppose I can be excused for making special reference to that. There are no large municipalities in that province outside of St. John's and perhaps Corner Brook where measures of conservation such as are envisaged by this bill would be required. The province would have to bear almost two-thirds of the cost of any project of this kind.
Will this legislation provide assistance in power development? I notice that the section which enables the minister to make agreements with the provinces refers to the building of dams for the conservation of water and I should like to know if that could be extended to include power projects where a river might be diverted to flow into other rivers so that a profitable power project could be brought into being.
This bill is something new, and it seems to indicate that the federal government has a great deal more money than the provinces. While some of these projects may be of great benefit, nevertheless they are local in character and cannot be regarded as being national. The entry of the dominion government into this field will give them a certain control over matters which otherwise would be exclusively provincial. I think everyone will agree that it is desirable that we should get the best results from potential water power sites in all parts of Canada. The provinces naturally are most interested in doing something along these lines, but the fact is that this amounts to a subsidy to the provinces in order that they may use that power to the best advantage.

I notice that the same section which gives the minister the power to make agreements also stipulates certain conditions in regard to reforestation. That brings me to something which was mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West. The hon. member was blaming private enterprise for the conditions which exist today in many provinces where natural resources have been depleted.
I think in the past governments were not sufficiently aware of the speed with which natural resources could be depleted. The passage of time has brought to the attention of all persons and governments the desirability of adopting measures to protect our natural resources. I think it can be said that the private paper companies have shown special interest in introducing the most advanced practices in fire control. I think they have done more along these lines than the governments because their whole operation depends upon the availability of forest resources.
In Newfoundland they have worked things out in such a way that the forest resources will be available in cycles. They will cut an area today and it will grow again so that in 25, 30 or perhaps more years the company can come around and cut that area again. In the meantime they will be cutting in other places. They are doing that in the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company's operations around Grand Falls, where a paper mill was established in 1904.
There is great value in flood control from the point of view of the tourist industry. I have mentioned this before, and I know that hon. members who come from provinces where there are salmon rivers realize that rivers are becoming depleted of fish because of a lack of regularity in the water flow whereby the salmon are prevented from having ready access to the headwaters of the rivers. If there is not sufficient flood control a river will dry up in the summer and the salmon cannot enter. If there are no salmon there will be no tourists visiting that particular section.
I assume that if this bill is going to have its full effect a provision will be incorporated in the agreements so that sort of thing can be done. Provinces could erect dams to regulate the flow of water in salmon rivers to enable the salmon to ascend regularly and thus provide more sport. There is no doubt about it that the salmon rivers are more valuable to the province as a sporting attraction than merely for the spawning of salmon for commercial fishermen. They bring more revenue.
Water Resources


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was up previously I mentioned that we had no large rivers or bays in my province, but I wondered whether old mill properties, mill dams, could be renewed under this legislation. At one time the power was used for milling purposes, but today they are idle. Some of them have fallen into disrepair.
After I spoke about that matter I received a great many inquiries from interested people. Would that be too small a proposition for the government to undertake, the rebuilding of these dams and turning them into fishing ponds with the co-operation of the individuals concerned and the local government? Some of the people also wish to use these dams and ponds that have gone out of use so they may have small power plants. Perhaps the minister might advise me on this matter at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Joseph Browne: Is the
minister going to make any observations in reply to what has been said?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think I need to make any general observations at this time. If there are specific questions I will be glad to answer them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Agreements with provinces.
William Joseph Browne: I should like to ask the minister whether agreements can be made for the purpose of the development of water power.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not contemplated that agreements will be made with respect to the development of water power because such projects are normally revenue-producing and amortize themselves. There is a general provision under which water power might be contemplated as a subsidiary or perhaps ancillary development, but the primary object is not to develop water power projects.


William Joseph Browne: What is the purpose of preserving water if you are not going to use it for something? The idea is to preserve water so you can use it. If you build a dam and use the water to produce electricity and turn it into a revenue-producing venture it is more valuable than just having the water to look at.

Water Resources


John Alpheus Charlton: What are the qualifications for a province to apply for assistance under the act?


Robert Henry Winters: It is not a question of what qualifications are needed before a province can apply. The question is what are the qualifications before an application would be eligible for assistance under this bill. In the first place the project must be of such size and importance as to merit federal government participation on behalf of all the taxpayers of Canada. It must be the size of project that would not normally be undertaken by the provincial and municipal governments alone. It must be a project designed to conserve water and, in order to be of the nature of projects already carried out, have as one of its main purposes the prevention, or at any rate the minimizing, of serious flash floods. My hon. friend is thoroughly familiar with the Shand and Luther dams and the proposed Glen Allan dam on the Conestogo river. I can think of no better examples of the type of project that is contemplated than those.


Mr. Caiherwood:: Can the minister say to what extent such grants will be authorized? In other words, how much is the federal government prepared to grant toward the over-all picture? Is there any limit?


Robert Henry Winters: Each project will be considered on its merits. There is no limitation or specification as to the over-all amount involved.


William Joseph Browne: Have any requests been received from provinces other than Ontario up to the present time?


Robert Henry Winters: No specific requests have been received. Requests of a general nature have been received.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like the minister to answer the question I asked him a while ago. Would the rebuilding of mill ponds and dams in the province of Prince Edward Island be too small a proposition to take into consideration? The local government has already taken on two or three such projects and they now have fish ponds. One man is anxious to get some assistance because he wants to build a small power plant. Would that be too small?


Robert Henry Winters: Each project would have to be reviewed on its merits. Whether or not it was too small or too large would depend upon the size of the project, the revenues of the province, and the willingness of the municipality and the provincial government to participate and bring it forward for consideration. Each project would have to be considered on its own merits.
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).!


André Gauthier: Suppose a province refuses to call for tenders. What happens?


Robert Henry Winters: It is part of the practice in federal government operations of this kind to let contracts on the basis of tender, and it would be the intention under the bill to have that practice followed.


Pierre Gauthier: Suppose the authority in the province does not want to agree to the calling of tenders?


Robert Henry Winters: We would then have to decide whether or not there would be an agreement under the act. We are not committed to an agreement. If conditions are not such as to conform with the terms of the practice people would normally expect of us we would not enter into an agreement.


Pierre Gauthier: Then the same thing would happen as happened with the highway program.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do you want me to call it six o'clock?


Alphonse Fournier: There are only a few sections of the bill left. I cannot recall how many speeches were made, but we had quite a discussion at the resolution stage, and we have spent some time on second reading this afternoon. There are only four or five sections left, and perhaps the house would bear with us for a few minutes.


Mr. Gagnon:: Six o'clock.


Percy Chapman Black: I think we might pay some heed to the melodious voice of the Minister of Public Works and carry on a little longer by common consent. Personally I do not like to see a tendency on the part of the house or the chairman of the committee to force any legislation through. The minister has told us that this special legislation was designed in order to enlist the interest and co-operation of the provinces. I would ask him if he or his department have received any direct communications from provinces other than Ontario. Have any been received from the province of Nova Scotia or the province of Saskatchewan? Since the legislation was before the house at the resolution stage there has been very heavy flooding in the province of Nova Scotia. Considerable damage was done in certain places, in Oxford in my county and in Truro in Colchester county, as well as in other parts of Nova Scotia.
I would ask the minister if any communications have been received from the province of Nova Scotia and whether he has

made any direct representations to them. I would also ask whether there have been any similar contacts with the province of Saskatchewan. When this legislation was in the resolution stage discussions were held in connection with the South Saskatchewan dam, irrigation and control of flooding in the province of Saskatchewan. I would like to have a statement from the minister.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I think this is too important a measure to be shoved through the house under pressure. We may be desirous of getting away from here by a certain date, but the time to have begun to prepare for that was several weeks ago, not when we have a measure of this kind before us. We have an hour for adjourning, and I think we should adhere to it.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
1, 1953	3525
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): I move that the house do now adjourn. Tomorrow we will continue with Bill No. 109. We will then take up Bill No. 293, to implement the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean; the resolution respecting the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; the resolution respecting the measure to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937; and also the resolution to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act. There is also the resolution to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, and the resolution to amend the National Defence Act. I think that will take the day.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
3527

Thursday, April 2, 1953