1953-05-04

[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of special committee on the criminal law.-Mr. Brown (Essex West).


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table reference No. 174, mover Mr. Diefenbaker:	How
many building or repair contracts have been granted to the Lunam Construction Company, Saskatchewan, since January 1, 1948;
Also reference No. 154, mover Mr. Diefenbaker:	Correspondence between any department of the government and the Lunam Construction Company of Regina, having to do with failure to complete its subcontracts;
Also reference No. 215, mover Mr. Coldwell: Copy of progress reports signed by dominion public works architects, Saskatchewan, in connection with contracts awarded to the Lunam Construction Company of Regina.
This is only a partial report, relating to the Indian hospital at Fort Qu'Appelle. My officials have worked ever since the return was passed in the house to prepare these progress reports, and to have copies photographed and tabled. I had the pleasure of showing the originals to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and I asked him if he wished to have my officials continue working on these progress reports for all the other contracts, because I do not know if there would be any possibility of tabling them before the end of the session.


Mr. Coldwell:: The minister has stated what is correct. I saw the other reports and I think if this one were tabled it would give an indication of the type of report it was.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister if he is willing that these reports be referred to the public accounts committee for inquiry.


Alphonse Fournier: I have absolutely no objection.



REGULATIONS ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 365, to amend the Regulations Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to repeal the section of the Regulations Act, enacted in 1950, which gives the government the power to pass a regulation keeping secret any order in council, whether under the Emergency Powers Act or any other statute, which the government wishes to withhold from publication.
This bill would not affect any order now in effect, but it would prohibit the passing of any further secret orders in council under the Emergency Powers Act or under any other statute now in operation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Goode:: 1.	What were the names of coffee importers tendering on government contracts to the amount of $140,831 on the list published by the Department of Defence Production, March 16 to 31, 1953?
2.	Was the T. H. Estabrooks Company Limited the lowest tenderer?
3.	What British Columbia firms tendered on these orders?


Mr. Dickey:: I have discussed this question with the hon. member who has agreed that this be dropped.


Mr. Goode:: I should like to have the assurance of the parliamentary assistant that this large tender was awarded to the lowest tenderer. If I can get that assurance I am quite content to allow the question to be dropped.


John Horace Dickey: I can give the hon. member that assurance most definitely.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



FISH CONSUMPTION

Mr. Balcom:: What was the per capita consumption of fish, per province in Canada for (a) 1951; (b) 1952?


Mr. MacNaught:: Information is not available as trade statistics essential in such

Questions
determination are not applied provincially. For all of Canada the per capita consumption of fish in 1951 was 13-7 lbs. (edible weight). The figure for 1952 is not yet available.



J. RAMAGE

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Was J. Ramage dominion, public works architect at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, during what years was he so employed?
3.	When were his services terminated?
4.	Did he retire voluntarily or was he dismissed?
5.	If dismissed, what was the reason for his dismissal?


Alphonse Fournier: 1 and 2. No, he was employed as clerk of works, grade 4, from August 1, 1945, to September 30, 1951.
3.	October 1, 1951.
4.	He resigned after being told that his work was unsatisfactory.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



MONEY IN CIRCULATION

Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	What amount of money was in circulation in Canada as at March 31, for each of the years 1929 to 1952 both inclusive?
2.	What was the amount of same per capita during each of the above-mentioned periods?
1 and 2.	1 (Millions of dollars) 	 224	
March 31 1929 . . .		2 $22.34 19.50
1930 . ..		 199	
1931 . ..	
179	17.251932 .	
176	16.751933 . ..	
179	16.831934 .	
185	17.221935 . . .	
189	17.431936 . ..	
196	17.901937 . ..	
216	19.561938 ...	
226	20.271939 ...	
236	20.951940 . ..	
286	25.131941 . ..	
403	35.021942 . . .	
523	44.881943 . . .	
713	60.451944 . . .	
892	74.671945 ...	
1,026	84.991946 ...	
1,065	86.641947 ...	
1,091	86.931948 ...	
1,098	85.631949 . ..	1,164	86.561950 . ..	
1,181	86.131951 ...	
1,212	86.521952 ...	
1,270	88.01Note: It regarding '	is assumed that the 'money in circulation"	questions relate to
currency only, i.e., Canadian subsidiary coin, dominion notes, Bank of Canada notes and 
chartered bank notes. In the earlier years there has been some estimating to a minor degree.
j. RAMAGE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the last position held by Mr. J. Ramage in the office of the district architect for Saskatchewan of the Department of Public Works?
2.	When was he appointed to this position?
3.	What was his salary in this position?
4.	Does he still hold this position?
5.	If not, when did he cease to hold it, and for what reason?
6.	Is he in receipt of any pension or superannuation in respect of his services in the Department of Public Works?
7.	What are his present whereabouts and occupation?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Clerk of works, grade 4.
2.	August 1, 1945.
3.	$3,888 per annum.
4.	No.
5.	He resigned, effective October 1, 1951, after being told that his work was unsatisfactory.
6.	No, he received the return of his retirement fund contributions.
7.	Unknown.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, PRINCE ALBERT

Mr. Diefenbaker:: *
1.	What was the amount of the successful tender of the Lunam Construction Company Limited for the building or renovating or rebuilding of the post office building in the city of Prince Albert, during the years 1950 and 1951?
2.	What companies or persons submitted competitive tenders for the said project, and what was the amount of each of such tenders?
3.	What was the total of all payments made to the said company by the Department of Public Works or the Post Office Department in connection with the said project?
4.	Have claims been filed by subcontractors or by workingmen for unpaid balances due them from the said company in connection with the said project? If so, how many claims have been filed and what is the total amount thereof?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$404,000-public tenders received May 5, 1949.
2.	Harvey Lunam Construction Company Limited, Regina, $404,000; William I. Dier, Prince Albert, $468,660.67; Piggott Construction Company, Saskatoon, $532,806.34; W. C. Wells Construction Company, Saskatoon, $554,800; Shoquist Construction Company, Saskatoon, $592,900; Shannon Brothers, Saskatoon, cost plus basis.
3.	$429,087.40.
4.	(a) Yes, by workingmen; (b) Four claims amounting to $504.11.

Motions for Papers



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, BRITISH COLUMBIA MOTIONS FOR PAPERS LUNAM CONSTRUCTION CO.-SASKATCHEWAN PROJECTS

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all tenders made by tenderers in competition with Lunam Construction Company Limited respecting all projects in Saskatchewan, since the first day of June 1949 and to date, in which the said company was the successful tenderer.



PIAPOT RESERVE, SASK.-PROGRESS REPORTS ON SCHOOL

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all progress reports in connection with the construction of an Indian school at the Piapot reserve, Saskatchewan, on the basis of which payments were made to Lunam Construction Company Limited.



CAMPEAU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of all correspondence from January 1, 1950, to date, exchanged between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and lending institutions, purchasers of homes from the Campeau Construction Company, of Ottawa, and with the Campeau Construction Company itself regarding homes built by that company under the National Housing Act.


Mr. Winters:: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was established by an act of parliament to conduct business in much the same way as a private company. It is a corporation rather than a government department and individuals and companies deal with it accordingly. I am sure it would have a great bearing, for example, on the manner in which lending institutions deal with the corporation if they expected that their correspondence might be made public. It would make it difficult, if not impossible, to transact business in this particular field of mortgage financing.
Therefore, I would suggest that perhaps the hon. member might agree to drop the motion. I know the hon. member is particularly interested in any correspondence between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Campeau Construction Company, and without in any way creating a precedent regarding the principles guiding the operation of a crown company I will voluntarily undertake to table same.


Major James William Coldwell: That is satisfactory. I
appreciate the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the motion carry, subject to the statement made by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.


Mr. Herridge:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any member of the federal government and any member of the government of the province of British Columbia, since September 1, 1952, relating to the federal contribution to the building of that portion of the trans-Canada highway that lies within the province of British Columbia.


Robert Henry Winters: Subject to the usual reservation about obtaining the permission of the provincial government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to,
subject to the minister's statement?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I address a question either to
the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) or the Secretary of State. I should like to inquire as to the possibility of having tabled soon a return in my name which was passed by the house on February 25 having to do with certain defence projects, and also one passed on April 22, having to do with photographic supplies.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to look into the matter and endeavour to locate the information as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the end of the
session, I hope.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or the associate minister. It arises from a statement on page 4029 of Hansard of April 17 where the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) inquired as to the eligibility of Korean war veterans for army benevolent fund assistance. At that time the associate minister indicated that Korean veterans are eligible for assistance from the army benevolent fund but the officers of the army benevolent fund give a reverse decision. Which is correct? They claim that Korean war veterans are not eligible.
4710	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: It depends on their previous war service.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it that the interpretation is that Korean war veterans without previous service-


Brooke Claxton: This is not the kind of thing we should go into on the orders of the day, and also the question should be directed to the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Are Korean army veterans who have not had service in world war II eligible for assistance under the army welfare fund?


Mr. L. A. Mutch (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Under the army benevolent fund, the answer is "no."


George Randolph Pearkes: I said the army welfare fund.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I misunderstood my hon.
friend. I shall look into that and get an answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is
the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in a position to add anything further to his statement the other day relative to the possibility of a settlement of the grain handlers' strike at Vancouver? Has the government given any further consideration to having officials with power to represent the elevator companies come here to Ottawa? The delay is continuing far too long beyond what we expected would achieve a settlement.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Prime Minister has
asked me to reply. My colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and I have been in close touch with the situation and we are hopeful that grain will be flowing through the spouts of Vancouver on Wednesday.



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 228, to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should explain that these amendments were made


in the Senate at my request. They refer to the new provision of apportioning interest on securities between interest dates. In the bill as passed by this house it was provided that where a non-resident sold securities to a Canadian, which of course would be sold with accrued interest, the Canadian purchaser would be obliged to deduct 15 per cent nonresident tax from the amount of the accrued interest.
Representations were made to me following the introduction of this measure that this would be liable to cause serious dislocation in the purchase and sale of securities on the international market and that in addition it would cause serious discrimination against Canadian concerns which had offices in the United States-these are small in number-as against those security dealers who have not. The revenue implications of the provision are negligible. As a matter of fact, I think on the sale of securities by residents to nonresidents we will do rather better under the new provision than we did under the old. It seemed to me under the circumstances, since this was a new measure, that it would be well to remove this provision for the deduction by Canadian purchasers of tax on sales by non-residents. For that reason I asked the Senate to make the amendment.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Would the minister permit a question? Is the effect of this amendment virtually to leave the situation as it was? If there is a change from the previous situation will the minister make clear just what it is?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will leave the situation as it was in the sense that we never attempted to collect from a non-resident who sold a bond to a Canadian resident with accrued interest the 15 per cent tax on the portion of the interest which had accrued.


Mrs. Fairclough:: May I ask a further question? The amount of accrued interest will not of course be chargeable against the purchaser of the bond as income?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. The Canadian will not have to pay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to become involved in the complicated nature of the provision that was put in, then changed, and is now taken out. There is one point on which I should like to make a comment. First of all may I point out, in the light of what I have just said, that when the bill came before us it had in section 37 thereof a new paragraph 4A which was to be written into section 97 of the Income Tax Act. When we were in committee of the

whole on the bill on April 10 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had his colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), move an amendment to strike out 4A as it appeared in the bill that we had before us and to substitute an alternative wording with only a slight difference. We find now that the Senate has deleted that revision of paragraph 4A.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But on my request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that the minister says they did it at his request. However, I have pored over this matter to a considerable extent and it seems to me that its effect is as the Minister of Finance has indicated this morning. It does have some effect on the revenues of the country. The minister says that the effect is negligible. I came to the same conclusion, namely, that the effect on the balance of ways and means would not be great and might even improve the position so far as the treasury is concerned. But even if the Minister of Finance requested Their Honours to make the change, I feel that it should not pass without a protest from at least one member of this house. If a rule is a rule, then surely it is supposed to be observed. The other day, when we had another set of amendments to another bill before us from Their Honours, I asked the Minister of Finance if he agreed with me that they did not have the right to amend a taxation measure or, in other words, to make an amendment involving the balance of ways and means. The minister's reply is to be found at page 4516 of Hansard of April 29, 1953. He said:
I wholeheartedly share my hon. friend's views as to the right of private members of the other place to make changes in money bills which affect the balance of ways and means.
I said:
The minister agrees with me that they do not'have that right.
The minister answered:	"Yes." It seems
to me that it does not alter the position for the minister to say the two things that he has said this morning. On the one hand he has said that the effect on the revenue is negligible. On the other hand, he said that the change was made at his request. I should like to know what section of the British North America Act gives the Minister of Finance the right to request the Senate to do something which they are not permitted to do by the terms of the British North America Act. I do not know just how much of a fuss one should create in the circumstances, but it seems to me that the government should have found some constitutional way in which to deal with this question.
Income Tax Act
I have learned a lot about law during the years that I have been in this place, having associated with so many lawyers. Therefore I wonder, if someone should feel aggrieved under this new legislation, whether he might not have the right to appeal to the courts and argue that this change in the Income Tax Act was improperly made because it involved a change in a taxation measure made by Their Honours in the other place. Surely there is a pretty important principle involved here even if the effect on the revenue is only a few cents or a few dollars. Surely a rule is a rule. The British North America Act is quoted to us many times as a sacrosanct document and it provides that money measures, taxation measures, measures affecting the balance of ways and means, are the prerogative of the House of Commons.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), has reminded me, if the Senate can make a change involving a few dollars merely because the amount is small, when the Minister of Finance requests it, then they could make a change that would be quite substantial in nature. Since the Minister of Finance has confirmed the judgment I made on studying this matter, namely, that there is an effect on the revenue, even though negligible, I protest against the way in which this is being done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have the greatest admiration for my hon. friend's profound knowledge of law acquired during his term of office in the house. The question of the right of the Senate to deal with money bills is of course a very difficult one and very controversial in some respects. The provision of the British North America Act to which he refers is the one which says that any bill which imposes a charge on the people must be introduced in the House of Commons and it must be introduced by a minister of the crown and authorized by resolution.
There are differing opinions as to what the Senate can do to a money bill after it gets there. However, custom and usage over a great many years have determined that they can reject a money bill but that the House of Commons will not accept amendments to money bills made in the Senate except when made on the request of a minister of the crown. That is the practice. So far as I am aware there is no specific provision of the British North America Act which deals with the particular point that we are now discussing.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister
allow a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, indeed.
4712	HOUSE OF
Co-operative Credit Associations Mr. Diefenbaker: This is a very interesting point. I should like to know when the Senate has previously made a change in a money bill at the request of a minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There have been at least two occasions within recent years that I remember. I forget the details of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This may be compounding
a wrong.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am merely endeavouring to enlighten my hon. friend on the strictly legal position. I am not attempting to argue the propriety.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should
like to ask one question because I think the matter is of great importance even though the amounts involved may be trivial. Do I understand that the minister distinguishes between this and the previous case in which, as I understand it, he completely agreed with the view put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The quotation from
Hansard that the hon. member gave was quite correct, of course, but it should have been qualified by the statement "except on the request of a minister of the crown", which is the position I took in the Senate.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT LIMITATION ON LENDING    CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 338, respecting co-operative credit associations.
He said: Perhaps I should give a word of explanation about these amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a money bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: These amendments were not made at the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, but they are not opposed by the Minister of Finance.
The situation is that section 46 of the bill to incorporate these co-operative credit associations provided that the associations to be incorporated under the act should not invest their funds in loans to any one member in excess of 10 per cent of their paid-up capital and deposits except with the consent


of two-thirds of the full board of directors and except after complying with certain rather strict requirements as to publicity.
In the other place, the question was raised as to whether it was wise to allow this latitude in these new associations. I was asked about it and I said to the banking and commerce committee of the Senate that the provision had been inserted after a good deal of discussion with the promoters of these bills and on the assertion that it would be difficult for them to operate unless a provision of this kind was included in the bill.
The matter was apparently discussed at some length in committee in the other place and, as a result of that discussion, the amendments before the house were proposed. The effect is that the national associations to be incorporated under this bill which is now before the house will be subject to the limitation imposed by section 46-that is to say, they will not be able to lend to any one borrower who is a member of the association an amount in excess of 10 per cent of the paid-up capital and deposits; but that limitation will not apply to the member associations themselves, that is to the provincial organizations which may continue to lend as they do now, I am informed, in excess of those amounts. They will be subject to the limitation that any such loans will have to be approved by two-thirds of the board of directors and publicity will have to be given as indicated in the act. The loans must not be for a period longer than a year and they must be adequately secured.
I am informed that the amendments are entirely satisfactory to the promoters of the bill and since I was prepared to accept the greater-that is to say a similar measure of latitude for the national association it is clear that I can have no objection to the lesser limitation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, with the minister I think the amendments are an improvement and I greatly welcome the fact that, as I understand it, they are made not merely with the acquiescence, but with the approval, of the co-operatives themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to indicate our approval of these amendments in substance. Perhaps at the same time, in view of the discussion which we had on the previous set of amendments from the Senate, I might be permitted to point out that this bill was not a money bill when it was first introduced to the house. It was not preceded by a resolution but was introduced directly on first reading. In my view Their Honours in the

other place had the right to make these amendments, and we agree to them.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied with the minister's explanation. There is one thing that I would like to correct because, apparently, the people in the other place have not read the history of the credit union movement when they describe it as a new organization. The organization celebrated its 100th birthday in 1951, so it is not new.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
. CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT

Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 340, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Chairman:: May I point out that this
bill has been considered by the special committee on broadcasting and has been reported to the house without amendment.
On section 1-Minister to grant amounts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as you have mentioned, this bill has now come back to the house in committee of the whole from the special committee on radio broadcasting and, as you have said, the bill was reported without amendment. The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that before the committee one amendment was actually moved and defeated on a polled vote and a further amendment was indicated although not pressed in the committee because the chairman of the committee stated to the committee that he would discuss the content of the proposed amendment with the minister, in order that the matter could be discussed fully in the house, and if the minister saw fit to agree to the amendment it could be proceeded with on that basis in the committee of the whole.
Unless there is some indication of the government's intention to introduce an amendment in the committee of the whole to the effect of the amendments introduced in the committee, then I propose to introduce both amendments in turn. The first one, sir, has to do with the position in which this amendment to the Canadian Broadcasting Act will leave the annual provision for money for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Canadian Broadcasting Act I do not propose to repeat what I said in the house on the resolution stage of this measure on April 21, and again on second reading on April 22. I will state the point at issue as briefly as I can and give one or two illustrations of things that are involved in the form of the present section.
The house has already approved an amendment to the Radio Act which has the effect of abolishing the $2.50 licence fee on radio receiving sets. From that source the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in recent years has been receiving a sum of approximately $5f million per annum. The abolition of the radio licence fee was warmly supported in all parts of the house and we, in this Progressive Conservative party, have been asking for its abolition for many years.
There is now the question of providing an alternative or substitute source of revenue for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Minister of Finance in his budget speech indicated that the substitute revenue was to come from the 15 per cent excise tax imposed under the Excise Tax Act on goods within the new section 6 (a) of schedule I of the Excise Tax Act. With the bill before us, reported back from the committee in the same form, we say that what is proposed is something that is going to have continued legislative effect year by year from now until doomsday unless parliament alters the words of the proposed section. It provides, Mr. Chairman, that:
The Minister of Finance shall from time to time grant to the corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund amounts that, in the opinion of the Minister of National Revenue, are equal to the taxes collected under part XI of the Excise Tax Act in respect of the goods mentioned in section six of schedule I to that act.
That is to say, from this time on the Minister of Finance will be authorized to turn over to the corporation without vote of parliament, without mention of it in parliament, without any further authority from or reference whatsoever to parliament, all sums yielded by this excise tax on the goods listed in section 6 of schedule I of the Excise Tax Act. This tax is estimated this year, as was stated to the committee on broadcasting by the deputy minister of finance, to be likely to yield $12 million. The amount is divided almost equally between the goods under sections 6 (a) and 6 (b) of schedule I of the act.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, to this committee that the principle is altogether wrong of parliament saying now, not only for this year but for all future years, that the sums yielded by this particular excise tax shall be paid over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
In the first place, it is my submission that this runs altogether contrary to the principle of parliamentary control over the expenditure of public money. It simply means, if we legislate in this form, that the Minister of Finance is authorized from this time on, whatever this tax may yield, year by year-it may be $12 million this year and in three years' time it may be $20 million or in five years' time it may be $2 million-to hand that money to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I submit that is a direct contravention of the principle of parliamentary control over public expenditure. There will not be any occasion to refer this matter to parliament. There will be no need of any vote in the estimates. When we are dealing with a principle as important as this, when we are dealing with an institution as important as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, when we are dealing with matters as important in the life of a nation as sound broadcasting and television, it seems to me to be an urgent matter that parliament should retain complete control over this grant of money year by year.
We defend the principle by insisting upon annual vote by parliament of hundreds of estimates, many of them for smaller amounts than that involved in this section. Why do we do it? We do it because we affirm the principle of parliamentary control, year by year, over the annual expenditure of public moneys. Then, why do we tolerate the complete invasion of that principle in this case? I submit to the committee that the previous section is no adequate precedent for what is provided in the section now before the house. It is true that by section 14 of the broadcasting act, as it stands, there is provision made that the Minister of Finance is to deposit from time to time with the Bank of Canada the proceeds of the moneys collected from the $2.50 licence fee on receiving sets. Now, many of us did not like that provision either, but nevertheless parliament at least had some control over that annual expenditure when parliament was called upon to vote annually an item in the estimates to cover the cost of the collection of the radio licence fee. In recent years this sum increased to approximately three-quarters of a million dollars per annum. However, quite properly, the house has been asked each year to vote that sum of money, and if the majority in this house had chosen not to approve of the $2.50 fee on those radio receiving sets, the house could have ended it by simply refusing to pass the item which made provision for the expenses of collecting the fee.
[Mr. Fleming.!
The matter, therefore, had to come before parliament in the estimates of the Department of Transport every year. Parliament had an opportunity of discussing it, and if a majority had seen fit to disapprove of that method of financing the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, parliament could have refused to pass that item. Under the amendment now before the house, the position is changed in this respect. There is no future amount that will be required to be voted by parliament to make provision for this sum in any respect. It becomes a completely statutory item. There will be no opportunity whatever for parliament even to discuss the matter. There will be no opportunity for parliament to review any question in relation to the adequacy of the amount.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it happens-and this is pure coincidence-that this year the amount estimated as likely to be received from the 15 per cent excise tax on the goods under section 6 (a) of schedule I of the Excise Tax Act is almost identical with the revenue yielded last year to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the $2.50 licence fee on receiving sets. It happens to be a matter of pure coincidence, nothing more. I believe the Minister of Finance would be the first to admit it. How do we know what the situation is going to be one year from now? Nobody knows what the situation will be at that time. I do not know of any member in this house who can tell on the one hand, what this tax is likely to yield, and on the other hand what the needs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to sound broadcasting will be a year from now. If there ever was a situation where it is imperative that this matter should come back to parliament year by year, surely it is this. Some will recall that a year and a half ago parliament was called upon by the government to vote in advance the sum of $6J million per annum for a period of five years to finance the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This sum was in addition to the revenue then received by the corporation from the $2.50 licence fee as well as the commercial revenue of the corporation which, of course, continues.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that principle was wrong. The principle of voting annual grants for a period of five years in advance was wrong. If those grants were sound and were needed, parliament should be voting them year by year. The principle of a five-year grant in advance was wrong. Nevertheless,
I say this to those who approved the amendment at that time, this amendment goes even farther:	It proposes that the yield from the

excise tax on these goods I have mentioned should be paid over in perpetuity, not for just five years. That is the effect of this section. It remains a grant, if this becomes a statutory enactment, in perpetuity or until some later parliament amends or repeals it.
In my submission the principle involved here is altogether wrong. Why should there not be a strict maintenance of parliamentary control over the matter so that the money could be granted year by year? In recent days we have had a couple of examples of why it is so important that this house should not let slip through its fingers, in the manner proposed by this section, control over public expenditures in this regard. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that a question was asked on April 27 by the hon. member for Ontario, as recorded on page 4396 of Hansard for that date, concerning one Zygmund Ziemski, and as, to his employment by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The third question asked was as follows:
What was the occupation of this man during the two years previous to his employment by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
The answer is, "No information". Here is one case where the broadcasting corporation is employing a gentleman on a freelance basis to write important scripts without any previous information as to his employment. In a case of that kind I would think it is obvious that the house would wish information and certainly should have it. Why should the house then put it beyond its powers to insist on information of that kind by passing this legislation in its present form? Then later, Mr. Chairman, on April 30 a question was asked in the house concerning payments made to a particular gentleman for services in connection with broadcasts given by him for the C.B.C.; and as reported at page 4572 of Hansard the Minister of National Revenue said this:
It has not been considered in the interest of the corporation or in the public interest to make public amounts paid by the corporation to individuals in business transactions since the corporation is in competitive positions in engaging services.
I do not accept that as a proper statement of the position which the government ought to take in a matter of this kind; but, Mr. Chairman, if the house is not to be given information on matters of this kind where the answer given by the minister obviously will not hold water, I think it emphasizes why parliament should be so alert to prevent the present control it has over the raising and the expenditure of public moneys from slipping through its fingers in the manner proposed by this section.
Canadian Broadcasting Act
I am therefore moving, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops:
That section 1 of Bill 340 be amended by inserting in line 7 after the figure (4) the words, "subject to annual vote of parliament".
The effect of that amendment will be that it will be strictly necessary, before those moneys can be paid over year by year, that it should be a matter of vote of parliament. There will have to be an item in the estimates for the purpose. Parliament will have an opportunity of giving or of withholding approval of that item. There will be an opportunity for full discussion not only on the principle of the matter but on the adequacy of the amount proposed. It happens this year that, by a sheer coincidence, the amounts are approximately equal; I refer to the revenue that the corporation lost by the amendment that was passed to repeal the licence fee on radio receiving sets and the amount that is expected to be raised from this new source. But next year the two amounts may not be in balance at all. I therefore submit that this amendment is strictly necessary not only to preserve the principle of parliamentary control but also so that parliament may proceed intelligently next year to meet the needs of the corporation as those needs will be known at that time.
Then I wish to make one final point. There is only one excuse or pretext that has ever been given as to why parliament should be parting in this reckless manner with control over public moneys. It is said to us that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should have assurance in future years of certain revenues in order that they may go ahead and plan for the future. Mr. Chairman, I am as conscious as is any member of this committee of the need for planning in these matters. I do not wish to see the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation take a short-term view of its responsibilities. But cannot the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation trust parliament to proceed conscientiously year by year and to make intelligent and adequate provision for the needs of the corporation year by year as those needs are known and are disclosed to the house? Why should the shoe be entirely on the other foot?
We are expected, as a sovereign parliament, to trust the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the extent that in the one case we make provision in their behalf for a five-year annual grant in advance totalling $31| million. Now we are to be asked to turn additional revenue over to them without any future control on the part of parliament over it. Why cannot the alternative and sound principle apply, namely that the

Canadian Broadcasting Act Canadian Broadcasting Corporation trust parliament to make whatever provision is needed year by year in order to meet the known needs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? That is an issue, Mr. Chairman, which is presented by this section and which can be overcome only by an amendment of the type that I have proposed.
When this amendment has been disposed of,
I shall have another amendment to the section dealing with the other point raised in the committee concerning the division of the revenue from the excise tax as between sound broadcasting and television. That does not arise under this present amendment. This present amendment is a far-reaching one and the principle involved in this section in its present form is, in my submission, a far-reaching one upon which the committee should take a strong stand.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to say anything on this bill until the hon. member for Eglinton presented his amendment. I now feel that I should speak to it and state that we in this group are thoroughly in favour of the amendment; and I am going to state our reasons.
When the bill was before the radio committee, the hon. member for Eglinton urged that the committee report the bill with this amendment; but we struck a sort of gentlemen's agreement with the chairman of the committee to the effect that if the bill was reported back "as is", he would talk with the appropriate officials-the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance-to see whether he could not persuade them to put such an amendment in the bill.
I am reminded by those around me that I am referring now to a second amendment. However, be that as it may, I feel that an amendment of this kind which would place in the hands of parliament the authority over the appropriation is approximate and justified.
I cannot see why the government would not welcome an amendment of this kind. If, however, they oppose it, I think the minister should rise in this chamber and give us most excellent reasons for doing so. If he does not do so, and if the amendment is voted down with no explanation as to why the government opposes it, we can only conclude that such action carries with it a strong implication that the government do not want radio appropriations to be discussed in the House of Commons. If there is any foundation for such a conclusion, then we have to ask, "Why not? Why is it that the government does not want appropriations to be discussed in the house? Have they something


to hide, or would the matter of a discussion be embarrassing to them?" All I can say is that that is exactly why parliament sits here six months or more every year, not particularly to embarrass governments but to protect the taxpayer in seeing that governments do not take from the taxpayer any more than is necessary to carry on the country's business and to see that the taxpayers' money is properly spent.
I would mention this fact. We in this group have not vigorously opposed the general principle of the bill, namely that the radio licence fee should be discontinued and in its place there should be substituted the excise tax on radios, television sets, parts and so forth. And I think it is, if I may use a rather strong term, only decent that the government should indicate that, since that general principle in the bill has not been too vigorously opposed, they should meet parliament at least half-way so that the appropriation would be voted each year by parliament.
I believe the arguments are all in favour of the amendment. I am looking at the matter as fairly as I can. For these reasons we in this group will support the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three things I have to say about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton. First I should like to offer some comment as to the form of the amendment- or perhaps my comment would be as to the form of the subsection as it would be amended thereby.
I do not rise to assert that it is out of order; but it does strike me that it would make a rather ridiculous subsection if it were enacted in the manner proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton. There are two ways of voting money in parliament. One of these is to pass a statute in the proper way, making provision for payments as specified in that statute. The other is to put an item in the estimates which, in due course, becomes part of an appropriation act.
In this instance the hon. member for Eglinton is proposing that we pass a statute which says that money shall be paid from year to year, but only if there is an item in the estimates from year to year. Does that not take on the appearance of a somewhat ridiculous proposal? In my view it should be either one way or the other. Either it should be a statutory provision, or this section should not be written into the law at all.
In other words if the hon. member for Eglinton wishes to achieve the purpose he has in mind it seems to me he should vote against the section of the bill, and argue

that instead of dealing with the matter in this way the government should be asked to put an item in the estimates each year. I need not pursue that aspect of the matter further. As I say, it may be in order for parliament to pass legislation of this kind, but I think it would make us look rather ridiculous if we did it in this way. We do not do it in respect of an ordinary money bill. The Old Age Security Act does not say that we will pay certain money to our old age pensioners subject to an annual vote by parliament. I could go on down the list of the many bills passed by parliament, and make the same comment. Once they are passed they become law-subject always to the right of parliament either to amend those laws or to repeal them. Therefore I have raised this question as to the form of the proposed amendment and, shall I say, as to the means suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton for achieving the purpose he has in mind.
And now, as to the purpose itself, I must say we do not agree with it. It has already been indicated by the stand taken by our members in the special committee on broadcasting that we are opposed to this amendment. We feel-and I might as well be frank about it-that this is just another effort on the part of those who are opposed to public ownership and public control of radio to snipe at the C.B.C.
I am not one who will say that the C.B.C. is perfect; but we still stand by the principle that the airwaves of this country belong to the people of Canada, and that they should be under public control in a manner such as now obtains. We still stand by the principle asserted by the late Lord Bennett in connection with this matter, and we feel that the action now being proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton is an effort to restrict the work of the C.B.C. by making this money available to them only on an annual basis, so that the corporation will not know where it stands from year to year. To me that is just a part of the campaign against the C.B.C.
I think a far more responsible attitude on the part of parliament is to establish a principle, and lay it down in a statute, so that this corporation, acting on behalf of parliament and the people of Canada generally, will know where it stands.
And so, as I have already said, I question the form in which the hon. member for Eglinton attempts to achieve his purpose, and I also indicate our opposition to that purpose. We think parliament should pass the legislation in the form in which it is submitted, without the proposed amendment.
Canadian Broadcasting Act
The hon. member for Macleod raised the question as to whether it was the desire of the government to avoid discussion of radio matters in parliament. It seems to me we have had almost as much discussion about radio as we have had about wheat, and that is a good deal. We have it every year, in one form or another.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The South Saskatchewan is a close third.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance says the South Saskatchewan dam is a close third. Well, I think it is at the top of the list right now, and it probably will continue to be until the government straightens itself out on that very important issue.
At any rate, I find it difficult to go along with the suggestion that any attempt is being made to restrict discussion of radio and television in this House of Commons. I think it is well that we should have these discussions in parliament from time to time. I regret it does not seem possible for the C.B.C. and C.A.B. to reach an armistice in their difficulties, and to go along for a while on a co-operative basis.
I had the privilege of substituting on the radio committee in the fall session of 1951, and I recall that at that time hope was expressed-certainly by the C.B.C., and I think it was shared by the C.A.B.-that once policy had been agreed upon, these two bodies could work together. But no sooner had that agreement been reached and the understanding arrived at, than immediately attacks began to come in the form of memoranda and briefs against the principle of public ownership of the airwaves of this country which, after all, belong to the people.
And because those airwaves are more limited than, we will say, the space required for the operation of the railways, I suggest that the comparisons usually made do not apply, and that parliament should reaffirm its belief in public control and public ownership in radio, to the extent we now have it, and that we should not impose limitations upon that principle such as would be involved in the amendment now suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think
parliament should reaffirm the supremacy of parliament. That is the issue, as I see it, before this committee. In order to answer the 'argument regarding the supremacy of parliament, my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat has decided to bring out an argument which after all is not an argument. Because we in this parliament insist and

Canadian Broadcasting Act have been wide awake to the need of the preservation of the parliamentary institution in its entirety he chooses to use the ill-chosen phrase "sniping at the C.B.C." No one in this party has challenged the question as to the need of a national radio. No one is challenging it by this amendment. What we are asking is that parliament shall exercise control over the amount of supply to be voted, and that no institution in this country shall be in the position of receiving a vote in advance, whether that vote is needed or not. Parliament should not 'give u>p its right to ascertain whether the need for money is apparent in each and every year, nor should it -continue to approve a denial- to it of the right to examine expenditure.
I listened to my hon. friend this morning dealing with the power of the Senate. This is a constitutional question, and he spoke forcibly this morning when he said that the Senate had no right to interfere in any way with money bills voted by the House of Commons- anid sent there. He spoke with the same certainty but a few minutes ago. In order to keep the record -clear, and to show that the certainty with which he spoke this morning as- to the power of parliament and the Senate was expressed in words similar to those that he has just used, I would refer to the power of the Senate because the same question may -come up in connection with the matter now before the committee.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We have entered into the discussion of another matter. I do not think the hon. member should refer to whether or not the Senate has power to amend- money bills. May I -point out that on the second reading of this bill the hous-e -confirmed the principle of the bill. What is before the committee now is only the wording of section 1.


John George Diefenbaker: Suffice it to say that, if the present bill -goes to the Senate, the Senate as has been held by such an authority as Professor Dawson of Toronto University has the right to make any -change it will in this particular section. Parliament -continues year by year to abdicate too many of its- powers to boards and institutions it has itself set up. This is but another example. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in a position where it requires money from time to -time. Surely parliament should not be asked to turn over to the -C.B.C., in advance of the need- of these moneys, -a vote in perpetuity, to use -the apt expression of the hon. member for Eglinton. What parliament is doing by a-n apparently innocuous amendment is to permanently abdicate the power of examination and parliamentary control over moneys it votes.
TMr. Diefenbaker.]

One argument has been answered by my hon. friend, but there is the other argument that these are short -cuts. Someone has said that they save time. Well, parliament does not operate that way. We are not trying to take short cuts through the traditions and fundamental needs and responsibilities of parliament. If we wanted to take a short cut, all we -would need to do would be to elect a cabinet for the Canadian people and then nothing more would need to be done; you would- have your executive -chosen. But that would not be parliament. It is not like parliament to give to a board, however estimable that board may be, and regardless of its needs, the power to receive moneys for years in advance, or at any rate until -another parliament determines to the contrary.
There certainly has been a very pronounced tendency during the present session for the government to close down the lid on all information that might be embarrassing to them. There have been many examples of that, and we in the opposition have taken a strong stand against it. Therefore, we cannot in conscience accept the proposition that we are to turn over to the C.B.C. moneys in advance and be denied a careful examination of the accounts of the C.B.C.
Someone will say that we have a committee. Unfortunately this year I was unable to sit on that committee, as I have through the years. The committee receives a general outline as to what the C.B.C. has done during the year and its plans for the future, but it never has been allowed, neither has the house, to ascertain information of a particular nature. My hon. friend has mentioned a couple of questions that have been brought before the house where there has been a refusal by the government of the information. We have had the same in other departments, such as Central Mortgage -and Housing Corporation. We vote money and they spend it; but try to get any information, just endeavour to ascertain the facts. The situation as it exists in that corporation or in any other government corporation-I am not singling it out- is that the invariable -answer given is that parliament is not entitled to the information.
This latest amendment to the Canadian Broadcasting Act will in effect constitute approval in advance by parliament of the lid being placed on information as to the expenditure of moneys to be made by the C.B.C. for as long as the amendment remains in effect. What we are doing is to give up the right of parliament to be shown the need for supply. What we are doing in effect is turning over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a fixed sum of money, whether required or not, for years ahead, without the

need of an annual vote. It may be a shortcut and it may save a few minutes of the time of parliament, but it constitutes a retrograde step and one which I personally would oppose no matter from what side of the house it was introduced.
I reiterate once more the words with which I commenced. I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was adding anything to the force of his argument by ascribing to this party motives which he ought to have known were unjustified in order to place himself in the position where he could oppose the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton.
He has been one through the years who on every occasion has spoken of parliamentary supremacy, but on this occasion he chooses the opportunity to cast a smear on this party, an unjustified one, in order to justify the stand taken by him today which was at variance with that which he has taken through the years, that parliament must control supply, that parliament shall not vote moneys like a pig in a poke, and that parliament must at all times-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Just one minute-must at all times, in voting these moneys, make sure that the moneys will be expended in accordance with the wishes of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Last week we had before us a bill to amend the National Housing Act involving grants that the minister is permitted to make to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, grants that can be made for slum clearance and so on. The bill laid down the provisions under which those payments are made. There was no clause included suggesting that the grants or payments were to be subject to an annual vote. My hon. friend or his friends in his party did not move any such amendment. Why is it that all of a sudden a particular statute is picked out and a proposal is made that I have never heard made in the house before, namely, that a money bill should have in it the stipulation that the moneys provided for in the bill should not be paid except upon annual vote?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is evading the issue. That suggestion is simply raising some other question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not answering the question at issue, which is the supremacy of
Canadian Broadcasting Act parliament. When we give a grant we have the right to examine. In giving grants to an organization such as this one, however, we have found that the door is ever closing more until today, so far as the C.B.C. is concerned, and the housing corporation too, we find ourselves in the position that once having granted the money we have abdicated our right to examine, and we are invariably met with the argument that it is not in the public interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why did you not raise that question before?


John George Diefenbaker: A question might be raised at any time as to why we did not bring up the question at another time. On this occasion we raise it because of the need of preserving the revenues of the country against expenditures that should be justified before parliament, and second, the need to maintain parliament. The fact that it was not raised before has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. It is being raised now and it does not answer the argument put forward now to advance the argument that the same type of argument was not put forward on another occasion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall only take a moment, and I am not going to discuss the general policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the general methods of financing that crown corporation, because these matters have been discussed at length on other occasions and have already had a good deal of airing in the house at this session. But I do want to discuss the section which is before the committee and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton. I am told that the same amendment was suggested in the committee on broadcasting and was rejected there. In my budget speech on February 19 I indicated the government's proposals for financing the C.B.C. in the immediate future. A year or so ago parliament passed a statutory grant of $6,250,000 a year for five years to be paid to the C.B.C.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In 1951.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, it is a five-year grant at the rate of $6,250,000 a year. I think there was a general feeling that the continued imposition of the licence fee was an inefficient method of raising moneys for the C.B.C., and since the great majority of people now have radios it would seem that it is not inappropriate to transfer that burden to some other form of tax which is of fairly general application. In my budget speech I indicated that it was proposed to earmark the special excise tax revenues on radio receiving sets and parts and on television sets and that the amount of that tax would be paid over to the C.B.C. I will readily concede that the practice of earmarking taxes for special purposes is one which

Canadian Broadcasting Act should be used with care. We have already created one precedent by, in effect, earmarking three special taxes, the 2 per cent tax on corporations, the 2 per cent tax on personal incomes and the 2 per cent general sales tax for purposes of old age security.
The proposal now before the committee constitutes a statutory appropriation just the same as any other statutory appropriation. Obviously in a tax of this kind some discretion must be given to the Minister of National Revenue because, by reason of the way in which these taxes are collected, it would be impossible for him to determine to the. last cent the exact amount received from these particular taxes. I call the attention of the committee to what I said in my budget speech, to be found at page 2133 of Hansard. At that time I said:
We believe that payment to the C.B.C. of the amount of revenue received from the 15 per cent special excise tax on radio sets and the taxable parts and accessories for them does provide a satisfactory alternative-
An alternative to the radio licence fee.
-at least for the next few years until the present statutory grant for radio broadcasting is reviewed at the end of its five-year term. Consequently we are proposing that the broadcasting act should provide for this transfer of revenue, as well as that for television . . .
That was the proposal. It has been before the house for two or three months. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite correct when he says that to add the words contained in the proposed amendment to the section now before the committee would destroy its character as a statutory appropriation. For that reason, among others,
I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
As to this nonsense about having no opportunity to discuss the affairs of the C.B.C., may I say that I have been in the house for thirteen years, and with the possible exception of wheat I do not believe any other subject has received such a thorough airing in the house as the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. To use a slang phrase, it is pure eyewash to say that the House of Commons has not the fullest opportunity to dig into what the C.B.C. is doing, to find out how much money it is spending, and to find out how it is spending that money.
There are a variety of ways available under the rules of the house which permit the putting of non-confidence motions if that is desired in order to look into particular matters of financial administration. Each year the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required to table its budget in the house, and there are opportunities under the rules to enable any


member to discuss the financial affairs of the C.B.C.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister used the word "budget". Does he mean budget or financial statement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Budget-b-u-d-g-e-t.


Mr. Sinclair:: Now he understands.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has never been tabled in the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to all this easy talk about putting the lid on information and concealing facts and so on, again there has been no attempt and no desire to conceal from any member of the house any information to which he is entitled. In the case of some of these crown corporations which, for reasons decided by parliament as being desirable, operate as separate corporations, there are obvious limitations to the information which may be given to parliament and which may affect the commercial operation of these concerns. But that has been discussed time and again in the house and I do not propose to discuss it again now.
Reference was made to this measure being passed in perpetuity. Here again, Mr. Chairman, nothing is passed by this house in perpetuity. No taxing statute that is passed has any term on it as to how long it will remain in effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And is always changed just before an election.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are changed almost every year. You will find very few statutes on the statute books today which are not amended at least every two or three years, certainly the ones which have any direct and current connection with the life of the nation. Therefore to say that this will be passed in perpetuity is at least nothing better than a half truth. I submit that the proposed amendment which was rejected in the committee on broadcasting is not a serious amendment and I propose to oppose it here.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has spoken with frankness but with considerable heat.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just forcibly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that indicates this is a more important subject than would meet the eye on first impression. It is of course an important subject, because it goes right to the root of the question as to whether or not parliament is to be allowed to continue to be supreme in its control over the spending of public money. I take up immediately that part of the minister's statement where he

said "eyewash" to the suggestion that this was going to be in the form of a limitation on the right to discuss the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is quite wrong and he knows it if he reflects for a moment. The fact is that although there have been opportunities in the past to discuss the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and those opportunities have been taken advantage of, they have arisen out of the very set of circumstances which this bill seeks to change. Those opportunities will not arise in the future. The annual opportunity to discuss the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the occasion on which the house has always had the right-not simply a favour granted by the government-was when the item previously in the estimates of the Department of Transport came up. Approval of parliament was necessary before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could get the financing upon which until this time it has relied. Now we have passed a five-year statutory grant and that has whittled away the right of parliament to discuss the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The Minister of National Revenue brings in this bill which will complete the process and, until the government in its discretion chooses or desires to amend the Excise Tax Act, remove from parliament the right to discuss the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The minister knows the financial structure of the government and the financial procedures of parliament far too well to use the expression "eyewash". The sense of conviction, the heat and the force with which he did it is a perfect illustration of the old adage that the worse the case the louder you shout; and if you have no case at all shout like the devil and bang on the table.


James Sinclair: Mention that to the hon. member for Eglinton.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what the minister was doing when he used that expression with such simulated indignation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shall we say "enthusiasm".


Edmund Davie Fulton: We come to the question of this matter of the right to review the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the parallel which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested should exist between this and the situation with regard to the old age security fund. There is a set proportion of the tax revenue set aside for that fund but it is nevertheless eyewash to suggest that the two things are on all fours. There is still an annual item in
Canadian Broadcasting Act the estimates for the administration of the old age security fund which gives parliament the undisputed right to discuss the application of these moneys which by statute are set aside for the purpose of the old age security fund. We do not have that item in the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two C.B.C. items in the estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There may be. As my hon. friend from Eglinton points out, one of them covers the international service; but should this bill pass I should think it extremely likely that it will fulfil the purpose for which we are told it is designed and that the items referred to will also disappear from the estimates. That being the case, the argument of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre falls to the ground. Even if he does want to make some argument on the basis of the Old Age Security Act I suggest that he is simply grasping at straws which not only have no solid foundation but do not exist. The two situations are entirely separate and there is no parallel between them at all.
The tax moneys set aside under the Old Age Security Act are not to be paid to a crown corporation or an agency of the government, they are set aside and paid to the Canadian people. The Canadian people as yet do not have to account to this government or this parliament for the manner in which they spend their old age security payments. In our view, and in the view held by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre until he diametrically reversed his position today-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I object to the statement that I have diametrically reversed my position. As a matter of fact-


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no question of privilege there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -it is my hon. friend-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was stating his question of privilege but if I am to be able to understand I will have to be able to hear him. Has the hon. member stated his question of privilege?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know whether it was heard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has stated his bogus question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is bogus and he knows it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point is that it is not I who have reversed my position, it is the hon. member who is now speaking. As far as the

Canadian Broadcasting Act old age security fund is concerned the three taxes are paid into it by a statutory provision and that payment is not subject to annual vote by parliament. My friends come along now and want the paying over of this money to be subject to an annual vote by parliament. They are the ones who are reversing their position.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that he is not reversing his position but he could have let the hon. member for Kamloops finish his speech and then make that statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was endeavouring to point out to Your Honour that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was not raising a question of privilege and he knew it at the time. However, we will let it go; but in his so-called question of privilege the hon. member has not succeeded, any more than he could succeed on the merits of his argument, in justifying his present position. The fact is that his present position is a reversal of his previous position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are having an awfully difficult time there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I often have difficulty in being heard over some of the interruptions which my hon. friends make but we do have to put up with them in the house when the views we put forward are not in accord with those of some of their members.


James Sinclair: You and the Social Crediters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The fact is, Mr. Chairman, and my hon. friends cannot controvert it if they stop to think about it, that if this bill is passed in its present form the right of parliament to review the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be removed. There will rest only the privilege, for such in fact it is, that is accorded to us by the annual appointment by the government-on a motion moved by the minister-of a special committee to review the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The committee is not a standing committee of this house. The committee will not be set up unless the minister introduces a motion and unless the government permits the motion to be carried. There is, therefore, no assured right of parliament to discuss the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation other than on the item which has heretofore appeared in the estimates of the Minister of Transport; and that item will no longer be there.
If the government is sincere, and if the Minister of Finance is sincere and wishes to demonstrate that he means what he says,


about there being further opportunity for discussion-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite parliamentary the way you put it the second time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I would suggest that, on behalf of the government, at the beginning of the next session he should rise and say that he wishes to amend the rules of the house to provide that the committee on radio broadcasting shall be a standing committee of the house, and that the annual statement and the proposed capital budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be referred to and first approved by that committee before the moneys will be turned over to it. If the minister will give us that assurance, that will satisfy us that there will be an opportunity, that there will be a right of parliament to discuss the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to approve their proposed expenditures and their past expenditures- the way that they have spent the money now being provided for them by taxation-instead of that being left to the will or whim of the government.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate and necessary that we should just say a word about this question of whether the provision put forward in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton is, in effect, any suggestion that there should be a lessening of public control of radio. It is, of course, exactly the contrary. It is an attempt to ensure that public control of radio shall be preserved, which is the control exercised by parliament. The mere fact that there is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with a board of governors consisting of eleven persons does not mean that there is public control of radio broadcasting or television in Canada. In itself, that is no guarantee that broadcasting or television will be carried on in the public interest. The only thing that can ensure the protection of the public interest is for this parliament to maintain its control over the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because parliament is in a position to insist that the corporation, its chairman and board of governors should account to parliament for what they have done with the money the taxpayers provided.
The mere fact that there exists a board of governors which will no longer have to answer to parliament, if this bill passes in its present form, is no assurance that there shall be public control of radio. In fact, it assures the exact opposite. It means the removal of parliamentary control over the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Those who believe in real public control of television and sound broadcasting in Canada should, I submit, consider carefully the decision which

they are being asked to make if they reject the proposition put forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, if they reject the amendment. I submit they should not agree with the minister, but should vote for the amendment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The enthusiasm which the minister has expressed has affected me, and I wish to say a word in support of the amendment. When the minister rose I thought that we were going to get the reasons for this proposal, which I have not heard as yet. He indulged in the well known practice of setting up straw men in order to knock them down. He scolded us for saying that we were going to be deprived of information. I do not remember having heard that said. He also scolded us for having said that there would be the threat of concealment; I do not remember hearing that said.
The point I wish to make is the point made by the member for Eglinton, that this is a direct contravention of the principle of control of parliament. I wish to point out that, in the absence of a reason-certainly none has been given which to me has the least convincing quality-as to why the C.B.C. is entirely different from the Canadian National Railways, the national research council or the atomic control board, all of which have to come each year and submit themselves to this parliament, and all of whom have confidence that they will be properly treated by this parliament and will be able to carry on their affairs, I shall vote for the amendment. The only semblance of a reason I have heard, and I underline the word "semblance", is that unless we give the C.B.C. a grant of money for years in advance, and thereby abdicate our own function, the C.B.C. will not be able to carry on its business. In my opinion that comes very close to the category of what the minister has delicately described as eyewash. It seems to me to be no reason. Unless we have a better reason, I shall vote for this amendment.


Ernest George Hansell: I rise for the second time on this point, and I say again that when the minister replied he did not give an adequate reason for opposing this amendment. We should like to know when parliament would have an opportunity at any time in another session of discussing the appropriations and expenditures of the C.B.C.. It is all very well for the minister to say there will be plenty of opportunity. If there is nothing in the estimates, there will be no opportunity. It is all very well for the minister to say that we can discuss the matter on the budget. The minister knows quite well that it cannot be discussed on the budget.
Canadian Broadcasting Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was referring to the budget of the C.B.C. which has to be tabled in parliament.


Ernest George Hansell: Now the minister is putting up a straw man, as the hon. gentleman who preceded me said. The minister knows quite well that when the budget of the C.B.C. is placed on the table there is no opportunity of discussing it. There is never an opportunity of discussing anything that has been placed upon the table, reports or anything else, unless that is accompanied by a motion for concurrence or acceptance. One has to speak to a motion.
Once again, I ask the minister when there will be an opportunity, not in one case but in our general parliamentary process, from now on to discuss the expenditures for radio? We cannot discuss them on the budget. When can we come to grips with the matter? When can we ask questions and get answers? There is no place. Once again I say that the minister has not replied satisfactorily as to why this simple amendment, which supports our democratic process of parliament of having expenditures controlled by parliament, cannot be accepted. The minister has not given adequate reasons for his refusal to permit this amendment to be passed by this house.
I would think he would be just as anxious as anyone else to have a proper discussion in the house of every appropriation. It is all very well to say that we have, in the past, voted moneys for this and that which have become statutory. Even suppose that is the case, why is the minister not prepared to have a discussion of that appropriation? Is there something to hide? I will tell you what I believe. I believe the government knows that if nothing is discussed, nothing is publicized. I believe the government takes the position that there is enough publicity given to this radio business and they do not want any more publicity given to it than is necessary. Why should they take that position? All I am going to say is that no institution is worth while in our democratic way of life if it cannot stand up against the most severe public criticism. I am not in favour of any hush hush policy. If we pass the bill without the amendment, that is the end of discussion. I will admit that if there is a radio committee set up from time to time, perhaps there will be some little play and discussion in it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just to please the boys.


Ernest George Hansell: My friend says, "just to please the boys." Even in the committee, things are often rushed through. I say once

Canadian Broadcasting Act again the minister has not given a strong reason at all for rejecting the amendment, and those are the only conclusions to which I can come.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, when the mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Eglinton, spoke, he said he did not want to take away from the C.B.C. the opportunity of carrying on its business; but I think the real effect of this amendment, if it were passed, would be to hamstring the C.B.C. because it would not know from one year to the next what moneys it had available to carry on. It is an organization which is such that it cannot carry on without knowing from one year to the next what money it is going to have to spend.
Up until now, or until this amendment comes into effect, the C.B.C. had the revenue from radio licence fees and had some idea of what it would get. We are taking away that source of revenue, and I hear no protest about taking it away. In that connection I should just like to say for myself that, for the $2 I spent on a radio licence, I obtained more than for any other $2 I spent in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. member if he obtained a licence for only $2?


Angus MacInnis: 


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was going to say that if he obtained it for $2, there needs to be an investigation.


Angus MacInnis: For the value received, it looked so small that I really thought it was $2.
There is just one other point 1 wish to make, and that is how badly the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton took the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, attributing motives.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We regret his errors.


Angus MacInnis: It would be amazing if he did not make that observation because my hon. friends, both on my left and on my right, never lose an opportunity-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tories on the right of us and Tories on the left of us.


Angus MacInnis: -of attacking the C.B.C. whenever C.B.C. matters come up for consideration in this chamber.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not right.


Angus MacInnis: I have been here a long time and I have yet to hear one good word, either from those to my -right or from those to my left, with regard to the C.B.C.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a terrible misstatement.
[Mr. Hansell.l


Angus MacInnis: There must be something about the -C.B.C. that is of value to the people of this country because they have kept it for a long time; and as I see it, despite what my -hon. friend says, there is no indication that the Canadian people are going to give up the C.B.C. Since we are not going to give it up, let us then give it enough revenue to carry on its work. I -can assure the committee that as long as the hon. member for Macleod, the h-on. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Kamloops are here, the affairs of the C.B.C. will be discussed in this chamber.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add just a word or two. It think it is the wish of hon. members to take the vote on this amendment before -one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are a couple of
observations I wish to make in reply to quite erroneous statements that have fallen from the lips of hon. members of the C.C.F. group and of the minister.
The minister said that this is not a serious amendment. The minister could believe that only if he -does not regard as a serious matter the maintenance of the principle of parliamentary control -over public expenditure. Let me make it abundantly clear that we in the Progressive Conservative official opposition regard as an extremely serious matter the strict maintenance of parliamentary control over public expenditure; and that is one reason why we are pressing this amendment.
Then it was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he was anxious to reaffirm the principle of public control. The attitude he has taken on this amendment is such as to destroy the principle of public control. If he votes against this amendment, he is in effect voting to put this matter beyond the reach of parliament, to leave parliament with no control over the annual provision of this $12 million. That is precisely what it means. When he talks about public control, he is talking about something that he is indicating here, by his vote, he is prepared to destroy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Holler a little bit louder.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make this statement to the hon. member for Vancouver East, who made the amazing and utterly untrue statement that we of the Progressive Conservative party never lost an opportunity of attacking the C.B.C. I wish to say with all the emphasis at my command that that is an untrue statement. It cannot be justified. If the hon. member says he has not heard favourable references to the C.B.C. from us, then he has not listened to the speeches that have been

made by hon. members of the Conservative party or by the hon. member for Macleod. I can point to many of them. I will make the statement flatly in the face of my hon. friend that when he says we never lose an opportunity of attacking the C.B.C. in this house, he is making an utterly untrue statement.
I am not going to take instruction from my hon. friends to the left-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Holler a little bit louder.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -with regard to the maintenance of a sound form of support for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It was the party to which I belong that brought the national service into being. It is the party to which I belong that will carry on that national service according to sound standards. We are the true friends of the C.B.C., not those who under the guise of pretending to be its friends are trying to adopt the C.B.C., of which they cannot claim paternity, and are proposing to depart from the principle of parliamentary control. We believe that the sound maintenance and support of the C.B.C. can best be achieved by those who at the same time believe in the maintenance of the principle of parliamentary control.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not want to curtail discussion, but if it is the intention to dispose of this bill before one o'clock-


Angus MacInnis: I can finish what I have to say before one o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: And if I follow the hon. member, I will not be long.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Eglin-ton said that it was the party to which he belonged which brought the C.B.C. under public ownership. That is true; but that was before the hon. member for Eglinton came here and before many of the others came here who now, as I said before, lose no opportunity of attacking the C.B.C. I was here when the late Mr. R. B. Bennett introduced this legislation, and I voted for it; and I am still supporting the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: Once again I want to put myself on record as being in favour of the C.B.C. I have never attempted to destroy the C.B.C. When my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East says we have never had a good word to say for it, he is wrong. Over and over again in the House of Commons and in committee I have said that the C.B.C. is doing good work. What my hon. friend does not like is that we in this corner of the chamber refuse to permit the C.B.C.
68108-299i
Canadian Broadcasting Act to become more socialized than it already is.


Angus MacInnis: That is the idea, is it?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; that is the idea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: We do not want to put it back into private control, as someone suggests. We want it to remain as it is. We want it to be effective, but we are not willing that it should become any more socialistic than it is.


An hon. Member:: We heard you the first time.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Noseworthy:: One o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As it is one o'clock, if the hon. member for York South wishes me to call it one o'clock I must leave the chair. I must announce immediately that I have been following the discussion closely for the last hour and a half and have also examined the authorities. I want to announce that at 2.30 p.m., when we resume, I shall declare this amendment to be out of order.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of personal privilege. In the issue of the Edmonton Journal of Tuesday, April 28, dealing with the international wheat agreement, the following appears at page 2:
Robert Fair, Social Credit, Battle River, said the price range is too low but his party would support the agreement. Canada had been selling wheat to Britain at low prices and he felt that the U.K. government would lose no time in signing the new pact if they took note of the way Canadian growers "have been spoon-feeding them."
Those last five words are not mine, and I ask to have them contradicted, because I was one of the first speakers in 1946 to support the British wheat agreement; and I, personally, and the group with which I am associated, have supported it ever since.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 340, to amend the Canadian
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Act Broadcasting Act, 1936-Mr. Abbott (for Mr. McCann)-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, the present debate on the subject of the C.B.C. is characteristic of most of the debates in the house to which I have listened during the seven or eight years I have been a member. The -lines between the different political parties are very clearly drawn, so far as the C.B.C. is concerned.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Can we not have the debate restricted to the clause and to the amendment before'the committee? 1 do not think we should go into the differences in political views existing among the various political parties with respect to the C.B.C. and its operations.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall try to abide by your ruling and keep to the subject matter of the clauses in the bill, and the amendments thereto.
Apparently the amendment is brought in for the purpose of indicating that under the present bill parliament will not be able to 'exert any control over the financing of the C.B.C. That, I take it, is the basis upon which the amendment is predicated. I think those of us who are familiar with the deliberations of the House of Commons must realize that, even though some of the dire predictions made by members of the Progressive Conservative and Social Credit parties were to come true-particularly in connection with the way in which the C.B.C. will be financed

and even though there were no items in the estimates in the future for the C.B.C., we must remember that the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible to parliament, will still have to bring his estimates before the committee each year. And as the minister responsible, the minister to whose department the affairs of the C.B.C. are assigned, it seems to me there would be ample opportunity for any member of parliament wishing to debate the subject of C.B.C. financing to do so when that minister's estimates are introduced.
That is one way in which the matter of C.B.C. financing can be debated. Then, again, opportunity is afforded to any hon. member wishing to avail himself of it to move an amendment to a motion going into supply, upon which occasion he may bring forward any grievance he may have regarding C.B.C. financing.
Neither members of the Progressive Conservative party nor of the Social Credit party are very backward in doing this. And while I am just as interested as any member of either of those parties in maintaining the

supremacy of parliament, I fail to see how the bill now before us will undermine that supremacy, so far as the C.B.C. is concerned. As a matter of fact, if I may be permitted to say so, I consider the move now being made by the Progressive Conservative party through the introduction of this amendment, and the support given to it by the Social Credit party, as being simply a way of camouflaging the policy of both those parties in connection with the C.B.C. I do not ask anyone to take my word for this. All he needs to do is to read the pages of Hansard, to look through the debates which have already taken place, and he will find set out very clearly on those pages the fact that the two political parties who are today supporting this amendment, through the years have supported C.A.B. just as intently as if they had been directly sent here to do that. You will find that any recommendations which have been put forward by C.A.B. as opposed to C.B.C. have had the support of the two groups which today are supporting the amendment now before the committee.
I suppose the Progressive Conservatives can hope to draw some comfort from the fact that it was their predecessors, the old Conservative party, that gave Canada the C.B.C. in the first place. But we have come a long way from that. Under pressure from private enterprise and from the Conservatives and Social Crediters the government have retreated a long way from the original position of the Conservative party that introduced C.B.C. to us. It was then vizualized that we should have an out and out publicly-owned radio broadcasting system. We have gone a long way from that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: 1 think the hon. member is opening up a discussion which is much wider than the amendment would call for.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The opposition to the bill before us and the amendment would indicate that those who oppose the bill will be satisfied with nothing short of private ownership of radio and television.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is
absolutely untrue.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not one
single word of truth in it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member wishes to continue along these lines I shall have to ask him to resume his seat and discontinue his speech.


Joseph William Noseworthy: As I have said already, it would seem to me that this bill does not impair in any way the right of parliament to debate and criticize where necessary the financing of the C.B.C.

There is one comment that I should like to make with your permission. I could scarcely believe my ears when I listened to the hon. member for Kamloops speaking this morning on this bill. I was so astounded at what I heard that I had to go and check the proofs of Hansard to discover whether or not I had heard him correctly. According to the proof, here is what the hon. member said:
If the government is sincere, and if the Minister of Finance is sincere and wishes to demonstrate that he means what he says, about there being further opportunity for discussion, I would suggest that, on behalf of the government, at the beginning of next session he should rise and say that he wishes to amend the rules of the house-
In other words, I just could not believe my ears that the hon. member for Kamloops was at this point conceding that the present Minister of Finance was going to be here at the next session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a question of personal privilege, I am not going to deny those words as they appear on the record of Hansard, but I think it will be as obvious to you as it is to the hon. gentleman that they do not reflect what I really had in mind.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I was equally surprised to learn that the hon. member for Kamloops, who is so concerned about parliament's right to criticize the financing of C.B.C., should be content to wait for the next session of parliament before asking for any assurance from the Minister of Finance that there would be ample opportunity for discussing this matter. It would seem to me that the hon. member for Kamloops was taking it for granted that this camouflaged stand of theirs could be an issue in the next campaign and that those who come back at the next session could then take up the matter where we leave it off.
I want simply to say, as I said when this bill was up for second reading, that we support the bill. We feel that this is not undermining the authority of parliament in any way. Personally I feel that the Progressive Conservative and Social Credit opposition to the bill is a mere restatement of the policy they followed in opposition to the C.B.C. down through the years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, we do of course differ in opinion but it does seem to me that we ought to have some common grounds as to the facts. To my amazement, the hon. member for Vancouver East just before lunch, I would say for the first time since I have had the pleasure of being in this house, made a statement which was a grievous distortion of the facts, in my opinion. I am going to read
Canadian Broadcasting Act it. I had hoped that he would stand up and correct this himself, but as he has not done so I propose to correct it for him by reading some of the remarks made by the leader of this party in the course of this debate. After all, this is an important matter and it is important that the facts should be in everybody's mind. What the hon. member for Vancouver East said was this: I have been here a long time and I have yet to hear one good word, either from those to my right or from those to my left, with regard to the C.B.C.
Having read that, I wish to read briefly from the remarks made by the leader of this party on March 18, as reported on page 3076 of Hansard. After reviewing the situation at some length, the Leader of the Opposition said:
Mr. Speaker, the party which was responsible for the creation of a publicly-owned broadcasting system in Canada, the party which brought the C.B.C. into existence, believes that the C.B.C. should be protected, and should be at all times removed from government interference which will be detrimental to the operation of that system for the gener.al advantage of the people of Canada. Any time we have raised objection to interference with the C.B.C. by this government, we have done so in the belief that the C.B.C. has played, can play and will play a vitally important part in the cultural development of this country. It would be the hope that we will not again hear such a misrepresentation of the facts as we heard in this house yesterday.
And, I regret to say, as we saw here today.
This government is not uninformed in regard to what has taken place. This government knows quite well that in the case of educational broadcasts, which are of such immense value to the people of Canada, those come under the supervision of the provincial departments of education because education is still exclusively the responsibility of the provincial governments. I have had excellent experience in the remarkable work done by the C.B.C. in the field of education. For a while I had some responsibility for the educational broadcasts going out to the schools in one province, and to the children at home. I received the utmost co-operation, the most wholehearted support, in broadcasting the types of programs that the department of education of that province thought would be of advantage to the young people. From conferences I have attended where ministers of education from other provinces were present, I know the same experience has been common throughout Canada. There has been remarkable co-operation between the C.B.C. and the departments of education in broadcasting educational programs in French and in English in every part of this country.
The C.B.C. has given excellent service to this country through the Farm Forum which regularly permits discussion, over the radio of the problems of the farmers, so they may hear the views the farmers exchange concerning this great and basic industry of Canada. Every day the farm news, which digests the latest prices and interesting information concerning farm activity, goes out across Canada and is of great advantage to the farmers. In many cases they arrange their day so' they are in their homes to hear this excellent broadcast. The people right across this country have come to appreciate the news broadcasts which

Canadian Broadcasting Act go out over the C.B.C. I have stated ray own belief that there are no better broadcasts going out over the radio stations of any country of which I know than the regular news broadcasts going out over the C.B.C. Where there has been criticism, it has been in cases where there has been interference with that measure of independence which is so important to the C.B.C., as it is to the private stations as well.
I could read more.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr, Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Well, anyone who is the least bit interested in knowing the truth will want to hear what I am reading. I am not the least bit interested in the cheap comments which come from one or two quarters which are well known and always with us.


Mr. Cleaver:: We would like deeds, not words.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to say that I hope this particular form of misrepresentation will disappear from the house.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am exceedingly sorry that I have so upset my Progressive Conservative friends by my comments on this amendment, particularly the hon. member for Greenwood, but I am not so sorry that I am going to retract one word of what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: I do not believe that I have ever spoken before in a debate on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the only reason I spoke on this occasion was that I have become tired of listening to people who are continually trying to undermine the C.B.C. Let me point out to the house, despite the fine words used by the Leader of the Opposition which were read by the hon. member for Greenwood, what my hon. friends are trying to do. They are trying to put the C.B.C. on the same footing and on the same basis as the C.A.B. I want to tell them and the committee that if that happens the C.B.C. will not be the C.B.C. as we know it today and will not be the C.B.C. as it was originally conceived by the late Lord Bennett.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am quite prepared to allow the hon. member to put his position clearly as opposed to that stated by the hon. member for Greenwood, but I would not want to let the debate extend to a point where the clause before the committee would not be debated at all. I should like to remind hon. members that there is an amendment to the first clause of the bill. As I said at one o'clock, I am prepared to give a ruling upon it, and therefore I would hope

that the clarifications which may be necessary arising out of speeches made this morning will soon be completed.


Angus MacInnis: If you will allow me, I will proceed, with your consent. I have one or two other words to say. When the hon. member for Greenwood was quoting from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition of March 18 he did not quote this paragraph on page 3073 which supports the point which I have just made. At that time the Leader of the Opposition said:
We believe we will have the most efficient type of broadcasting when there is that healthy measure of competition between stations, public and private, which gives impetus to the improvement which was pointed out by the chairman of the C.B.C. himself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And which the chairman of the C.B C. approved.


Angus MacInnis: They want to take away the position that the C.B.C. has at the present time. They want to have it shared by the C.A.B. Despite the brave words of the Leader of the Opposition on March 18, after the official opposition was put on the spot by the very clever speech of the Minister of Transport, I say again that is their position.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This has been a most interesting discussion. As the committee knows, I am only pinch-hitting at this time because my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, through whom the C.B.C. reports, was unable to be here today. I must say that I think a good deal of the discussion has nothing to do with the section before the committee or the amendment which has been proposed. I have not cared to intervene because I did not want to interrupt the discussion. I prefaced my own remarks by saying that I was not going to discuss the policy of the C.B.C. and I did not discuss it. I would hope that we could revert to the section and endeavour to dispose of it. We had a debate on the principle of the bill on second reading. This section was thoroughly considered in the committee, and everything we say now must surely be repetitious.


Louis-René Beaudoin: By intervening on several occasions during the discussion I have indicated that it appears quite certain that some parts of the debate that has taken place were not entirely in order. But apparently hon. members, in explaining why this amendment was necessary, have given other hon. members the thought that perhaps the purpose of the amendment was different from that which was acknowledged, and that is the reason why there has been a discussion with respect to the differences of opinion between political parties as to what the C.B.C. should be.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton was as follows:
That section 1 of Bill 340 be amended by inserting in line 7 after the figure (4) the words, "subject to annual vote of parliament".
My first reaction was that the amendment was not out of order, that it was merely a change in the wording of the section. The first point I should like to make is to refer hon. members to the citation in Beauchesne where it says that no condition should be attached to a grant. The amendment would attach conditions to a grant, and if it were intended to do so the resolution containing the Governor General's recommendation should have included this wording.
Having listened to the discussion that took place this morning, particularly the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Kamloops, I searched the authorities further. It seems to me that the amendment is in opposition to the principle which the bill seeks to affirm. That principle was adopted on second reading. Therefore in the first place, if it was desired to provide for such an amendment, it should have been discussed then.
In the second place, I would ask hon. members to consider this situation. The C.B.C. exists by reason of an act of parliament and some expenditures are authorized. All acts of parliament and the authorities under them are supervised by ministers of the crown. They are responsible for operations and activities carried on under these various acts of parliament. If fixed expenditures have to be recommended, it is done through the Minister of Finance in the course of his budget message and the estimates which are tabled and are analysed in committee of supply. Expenditures on the part of the C.B.C. are authorized by an act of parliament. They have been announced in the budget speech this session, and therefore it remains to be decided whether the expenditures are going to be made by an estimate, the amount of which would be contained in a resolution, or whether it is to be done by statute. Parliament has full authority to take whichever course it wishes. I would like to refer hon. members to citation 518, the last part of which, referring to the House of Commons, reads:
They are entitled to order and dispose how the national revenue, whether permanent or annually granted, is to be spent, and to do so in the greatest detail.
The course that was proposed to be followed and which was adopted in principle on second reading was that this grant be made not by
Canadian Broadcasting Act submitting an estimate to parliament but that it be made by statute on the basis-
-equal to the taxes collected under part XI of the Excise Tax Act in respect of the goods mentioned in section six of schedule I to that act.
To continue, if hon. members will look at citation 476 which indicates the power of the committee of supply they will see that it provides:
The committee of supply controls the public expenditure by considering the grants of money that will be required by the government for the services of the year, upon the estimates of expenditure presented by the ministers of the crown.
The committee of supply shall meet upon a resolution that the house will at a specified time resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Citation 477 provides:
The estimates for the year are submitted to the committee of supply by the finance minister bringing them down in the house with a message from the Governor General which is read in English and French, the house standing, by the Speaker or by the Clerk at the table. The minister then moves "that the said message, together with the estimates, be referred to the committee of supply."
I have read the citations to indicate that whatever money is to be spent, whether it is authorized by statute or whether it is authorized by the adoption of an estimate in committee of supply, the committee of supply is the agency that controls expenditures-no matter in what form they are agreed to by parliament. Therefore, if hon. members wish to discuss further expenditures made by the C.B.C., even if this amending bill is enacted, they will have the opportunity to do so- because the Minister of National Revenue is responsible for the operation of the C.B.C.- on the first item of his estimates, which is the administration of the Department of National Revenue.
It seems to me that this amendment would destroy the bill. It is against the principle that was agreed upon on second reading and, in the last analysis, a vote against amending clause 1 would allow hon. members to reach the same objective because the amendment is a direct negative.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, before you make your ruling may I make a brief submission to you with respect to the points you have raised. Your first point is that the house has in effect agreed to the principle of the bill- and the principle of the bill is that this will be a statutory item. With great respect I submit to you that it is not the principle, the essential principle of the bill. The essential principle of the bill is, there being such an identity at the present time between the revenue estimated to be yielded by the tax under the new schedule of the Excise Tax Act and the amount hitherto received by the C.B.C. from the $2.50 licence fee on radio receiving sets,
4730	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act that, for the future the Minister of Finance should be authorized to pay over such amount as the Minister of National Revenue estimated to be yielded from the revised schedule of the act.
With great respect, Mr. Chairman, that was the principle involved in this bill on second reading. It was not that it should be made a statutory item. The whole tenor of the discussion, right from the time the measure was referred to in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, and the speech of the Minister of National Revenue at the resolution stage, and his speech on second reading, emphasized the point that this was a matter of a new method of financing which rested for its purpose on the identity of these two sums. That is, in my submission, the only principle the house accepted when giving this bill second reading.
The other answer is that I do not see how an amendment like this could be introduced on second reading. This is not the type of amendment which the rules of the house permit to be introduced on second reading. So much for those points.
With respect to the principle of the bill,
I think the essential' principle of Bill No. 340 is clear from its terms, and it is clear from the tenor of the discussion in various sections of the house that the understanding attached to the principle of the bill is different from that which you have just stated.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In addition to being a
method of financing it might also have been to assure a stability of revenue. The revenues derived from the licences as we knew them had to be supplemented by an additional amount and, to replace that additional amount, we have to vote a sum beyond the money yielded from the collection of tax. This is a method of financing which happens to produce revenue equal to the amounts collected under the Excise Tax Act. To me, the principle of this bill is to give the C.B.C. a grant which will annually equal the amount collected under section 6 of schedule I under part XI of the Excise Tax Act. It is to be done by statute.
Therefore you have three elements in this amending clause. First, this is a grant; second, it indicates where the money is coming from; and third, it is to be made by statute.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, the principle of the bill must be pretty broad if it includes all those things, if the house in giving second reading swallowed all of them in one gulp. The true principle of this measure is that instead of receiving the $2.50 licence fee, which was a source of revenue for the C.B.C., the corporation is by


this new method to receive such amounts from the Minister of Finance as the Minister of National Revenue deems to be equivalent to the revenue yielded from the excise tax on goods covered by section 6 (a) of schedule I of the Excise Tax Act.
I do not wish to labour the point and I have made my submission. To me your interpretation is an extension of the principle the house approved on second reading.
With respect to the other point, I submit it goes to the merits, instead of to the 'question of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should point out for explanation that the hon. member could achieve the same objective by voting against the whole bill. I have to explain to him that there are two methods by which expenditures are authorized by parliament-by a minister putting a figure in the blue book of estimates and by putting an "S", which indicates a statutory vote. Discussion can therefore be had on the estimates of the minister who has responsibility for the estimates in the blue book or for the matters coming under the "S" statutory vote.
That is why, I submit, I was not going into the merits of the argument put by the hon. member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I did not make the statement in any invidious sense. I wish to make that clear. What I wished to convey to you is that I think the second ground you put forward is not a question going to the matter of order. We have accepted what we consider to be the principle of the bill- that the C.B.C. must have revenue. That revenue must be made available by parliament, but we say that it should be done in another way.
You point out that there may be opportunity for general discussion on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue. That may well be so-a general discursive discussion; but that does not go to the point I was raising this morning. There will be no opportunity for parliament then ever to grant or withhold that money. It is all disposed of.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, there is no opportunity for parliament to consider the sufficiency of the amount. It happens that this year it appears that there is going to be, according to the estimate made by the deputy minister of finance, an equation. But next year, it may be far from an equation. The submission I was making was that it should be within the power of parliament to consider the sufficiency of the amount, whether it be insufficient, whether it be sufficient or whether it be more than is reasonable. These

questions should all be open to parliament to decide.
Mere discussion on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue will not fulfil the need, which is that parliament should have full control over the matter. Therefore the ground upon which you have sought to base your proposed ruling is, I suggest with great respect, not sound as related to the point before us. I am prepared to meet it, when we debate it, as a question going to the merits of my amendment, but on the point of order I say with great respect that it does not relate to the point of order.
On the matter of the first point, if the principle is that the C.B.C. should have revenue,
I quite agree that the house has accepted that principle. The acceptance of that principle, however, does not in any way prevent the introduction of my amendment.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough to the hon. member for Eglinton. If his amendment is directed to having this money granted to the C.B.C. subject to the annual vote of parliament, I claim that the amount given in section 1 of the bill and also the amount given by the hon. member's amendment are subject to annual vote of parliament. Instead of appearing as a vote in the estimates, it will be in his blue book of estimates under "S". I suggest that the committee of supply controls all the expenditure. If any money is voted, whether it is through an annual vote of a stated amount in the blue book of estimates or whether it is through an act of parliament which says it shall be equal to the amount collected under a certain act, it is all voted by the committee of supply. There is not one cent spent by parliament that is not voted by the committee of supply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the last point, Mr. Chairman, with which I think you feel I did not deal, in so far as I am aware it has never been accepted in this house-certainly it has not been the practice-to permit discussion of the "S" items, which are statutory items. There is no power in the committee of supply to consider any of those, I mean as to their sufficiency or insufficiency, and vote accordingly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should like to clear up one point. The items which are designated as "S" items in the estimates are not voted as items, but they are included in the supply bill. Your Honour is quite correct in saying that the resolution in committee of supply, which precedes the introduction of the supply bill, includes those items in total. It is, of course, quite open to any member to refer
Canadian Broadcasting Act to those items in the discussion, although it is quite true that in practice it is not generally done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The committee of supply has considered, at the end of the session, the resolutions voted, and it has considered the supply bill. I think I am correct in saying it would be open to any member to raise this question. It has never been done to my knowledge. I am subject to correction on that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister will agree that the "S" items are never called.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How can they be discussed?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the hon. member understand that if we have the estimates of the Minister of National Revenue before us, even if there is not a single item listed in the blue book of estimates referring to C.B.C., he must refrain from discussing the C.B.C. when he knows that the minister responsible to this house for the C.B.C. is the Minister of National Revenue?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said that there could be the usual discursive discussion on the first item when we roam very widely, but that is not giving the house the opportunity that I am urging it should have, and which my amendment is designed to assure to the house, namely the right to deal with that item and consider its sufficiency or insufficiency. The house should have the opportunity to deliberate upon an individual item of the estimates which it has the power to vote or withhold.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the issue before us is very simple and very clear. I imagine that some hon. members will think that strange coming from me, because I know there are those who think that I can speak at length on a point of order and make it more complicated than it was when we started. In this instance I rise because I dare to think I can make it more simple than it is at the moment. There is before us section 1 of the bill which proposes that the transfer of certain money be made statutory. There is before us also an amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton proposing that the transfer of that money be not statutory. Now, is it not just as simple as that, namely that the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton is a direct negative and therefore contrary to citation 339 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads:
An amendment proposing a direct negative . . . is out of order.

Canadian Broadcasting Act
I think perhaps I should put the whole of citation 339 on the record. There are words in it which I left out because they do not apply in this case, but just in case anyone looks it up I shall put the whole of it on the record.
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
I left those words out, those words about verbiage, because, in this instance, the hon. member for Eglinton has not covered up the direct negative with verbiage. I say again that the issue is quite simple. Section 1 of the bill would provide that the transfer of this money be made statutory. The amendment would provide that the transfer be not statutory.
Then, Mr. Chairman, citation 341 says:
An amendment which would produce the same results as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
If my friend the member for Eglinton and others do not wish this to be a statutory matter and prefer it to be something else, surely their course is to vote down this proposal of the minister, and ask the minister to put it in the blue book of estimates year by year.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite right. He will recall having heard me say that if the hon. member for Eglinton voted against the section he would achieve the same result, and that is precisely what I had in mind. This amendment is, in effect, a direct negative. If the hon. member does not want the transfer of the money to be made in the manner provided by this amending bill, all he has to do is vote against it. The citation quoted and the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were exactly on the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As they always are on points of order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is one point on which perhaps I am not allowed to comment.


Ernest George Hansell: At this moment I do not rise in opposition to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, except to point out an observation you made in your ruling, that radio policy and anything to do with the C.B.C. could be debated on the general administration item of the Department of National Revenue.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is for the part that really comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue. There is another part that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. I would point out to you that under national revenue, on page 46 of

the blue book, there is no item of general administration under which-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes, it is item 294.


Ernest George Hansell: But that is under "customs and excise divisions".


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is because whenever the Department of National Revenue estimates are before the house they are generally discussed in two parts. Item 294 is general administration, and item 299 is also general administration. The hon. member has singled out a department for which the practice differs somewhat from that of the other departments. It is generally considered that a discussion having to do with the whole of the department could take place on item 294.


Ernest George Hansell: All I would point out is this, Mr. Chairman. On the basis of your ruling should we desire to discuss radio policy or such things as the appointment of certain individuals to C.B.C. staffs and all those incidental details, I trust that we shall be permitted to do so on item 294.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Quite so. For the reasons that I have already given, I must declare this amendment to be out of order.
Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. I indicated earlier that I have an amendment to introduce on section 1. This is also a matter which I raised in the committee on broadcasting. This matter was not pressed to a vote in the committee because the chairman of the committee suggested that he be given an opportunity to discuss it with the minister. The bill was reported to the house without amendment on that basis. I gather that the chairman of the committee has discussed it with the minister; and from the intimation I had from the minister at one o'clock I gather that he is not prepared to accede to the suggestion embodied in the amendment. I therefore propose to speak about it now, Mr. Chairman, and to introduce another amendment.
This matter goes back to the budget speech of the Minister of Finance in which he outlined an entirely new basis for financing the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The essence of the new method was, as nearly as possible, to bring about a situation in which those who derived the benefits would bear the expense.
The matter was approached in two parts. There was the new method of providing revenue for the sound broadcasting activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to replace the revenue lost to that corporation with the repeal of the $2.50 licence fee

on radio receiving sets, and the minister repeated again this morning the underlying view that he put forward in the budget speech in that respect, namely that radios are now in such general use that the licence fee could be repealed and a tax of general application should replace it.
Then as to the financing of the television activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it was proposed by the minister that a similar provision be made to permit the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to have as a source of revenue the sums yielded to the public treasury from the excise tax on television sets and tubes. I think I must read a passage from the budget speech of the Minister of Finance because it may be that he is not going to share the interpretation which I have put upon it and which I think is the only interpretation it can properly bear. That interpretation is that two funds were to be created, that they were coming from separate sources and they were going to separate uses, and that they were not to be merged in one general fund. This is what the minister said as reported at page 2133 of Hansard of February 19:
There is one further subject on which I have important changes to announce. The government has been seeking a fair and effective source of revenue for the national system of television broadcasting being developed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in accordance with the general policy that was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The government's policy is to have the cost of the national television service paid, as far as that is practicable, by those who benefit from such service. It also wishes the C.B.C. to have a direct source of revenue, on which it can budget over a period, and not to be dependent upon annual appropriations to finance its operations. We wish to emphasize that it is a separate corporate body, under the general control of parliament but not a part of the government.
Television operations have just recently commenced and their development has been financed by loans specifically authorized in the estimates. It is now expected that, in addition to commercial television revenues, the C.B.C will require about $6 million in the next fiscal year to meet operating costs of television, including interest on loans. This requirement will increase over the next few years, perhaps to about $10 million. Some part of these needs during the development period may properly be met from loans* and paid from future revenues, but we should start now with a plan to provide adequate revenues over the long run.
It is therefore proposed that the Canadian Broadcasting Act should be amended to provide that the corporation should in future receive from month to month the amount of revenue yielded by the present 15 per cent special excise tax on television sets and the picture tubes for such sets, and on such parts and accessories for television sets as are taxable under the Excise Act. In this way those who buy sets, or the replacement tubes for them, will be providing the basic revenue necessary for C.B.C. television services. In order to make this plan effective, it will be necessary to : revise the regulations to provide that tourists returning to Canada may not include as baggage eligible
Canadian Broadcasting Act
for free entry television sets or the picture tubes for use in them.
Having decided upon this plan in regard to television, we have now come to the conclusion that a similar transfer of the 15 per cent special excise tax revenue can and should be made to assist in financing radio broadcasting in place of the present licence fee. Although the continuation of this fee had been recommended by the Massey commission, experience has convinced us that it is uneconomical to collect such a small individual fee from such a high proportion of Canadian families, if any satisfactory alternative is open. We believe that payment to the C.B.C. of the amount of revenue received from the 15 per cent special excise tax on radio sets and the taxable parts and accessories for them does provide a satisfactory alternative, at least for the next few years until the present statutory grant for radio broadcasting is reviewed at the end of its five-year term. Consequently we are proposing that the broadcasting act should provide for this transfer of revenue as well as that for television, and that the order in council under the Radio Act setting the present licence fees of $2.50 should be revoked with effect from April 1.
Then further down the page:
I estimate that the amount of revenue to be received by the C.B.C. under these arrangements will be approximately $12 million in the next fiscal year, the amount in respect of radio probably exceeding somewhat that for television. The public will be relieved of paying something over $6 million in radio licence fees, this next fiscal year, and our expenditure in collecting such fees, anticipated at $700,000 in the estimates, will be saved.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is perfectly clear that under the scheme proposed by the Minister of Finance in that speech, and which was approved by the house when it passed the minister's motion that the house should resolve itself into committee of ways and means and when his resolutions were duly reported, what the house approved was a proposal under which the Excise Tax Act should be amended so that radio sets, tubes and accessories should be separated from those relating to television and that the 15 per cent excise tax yielded from that source should then be paid over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for radio broadcasting; and similarly that as to the remainder of the goods covered by section 6 and which now are to be found enumerated in section 6(b) of schedule I of the Excise Tax Act, namely television sets, tubes and accessories, the excise tax on those should be made available to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the development of television.
The minister was at pains to point out that the revenue from the first source, section 6(a) of the schedule, would just about provide the C.B.C. with the revenue it lost with the abolition of the $2.50 licence fee; and on the other hand that $6 million was estimated to be yielded from the excise tax on television sets and that that would be available to the C.B.C. for television broadcasting and the development of it. Mr. Chairman, the tenor

Canadian Broadcasting Act of the remarks made in this chamber by the Minister of National Revenue on the resolution stage of the present measure, on April 21, as reported at page 4185 of Hansard and again in his speech on the motion for second reading on April 22 as reported at page 4215, is to precisely the same effect. The whole stress was on the fact: You have two funds here, and they are going to two separate objects.
Then when we came to examine this bill in committee we found that the bill did not carry out that division. Bear in mind, will you, that in furtherance of the proposal of the Minister of Finance, embodied in language which I have read, the house did proceed to amend the Excise Tax Act. It amended section 6 in order to create two classes of goods under section 6 thereafter-section 6(a) which now includes radio receiving sets, tubes and accessories, and section 6(b) which enumerates television sets, tubes and accessories.
Now, we have created the distinction very clearly in the statute in the matter of the sources of revenue. We have two sources now. But when we come to this measure, by which provision is to be made for the disposal of the two sources of revenue, for two distinct purposes, we find the bill does not have that effect at all; but that although parliament has indicated two sources this bill sets out one, and one alone, without a word earmarking it by allocation at all to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
When I raised this point in committee some of the members said, "Well, will not the C.B.C. know that this is what is intended?" The answer clearly is that the C.B.C. does not know. The C.B.C., without statutory direction with respect to the $12 million, will not know how parliament intended that the money should be divided as between the two principal activities of the C.B.C., namely radio broadcasting and television. And surely it is the minimum duty of parliament, in dealing with a large sum like this, to be fair to the board of governors of the C.B.C., and say to them how as between these two principal activities of the C.B.C. that money is to be used.
It is impossible to deduce from the fact that parliament has divided into two the sources of revenue, by the amendment made in the Excise Tax Act, that parliament therefore expects the C.B.C. to carry that line of distinction through. The distinction will be preserved in this measure as to the source: but it stops there. The deputy minister of finance, before the committee, said, "We will pass the information on as to how much of the monthly payments comes from the excise

tax on goods under 6(a), and how much from goods under 6(b) of schedule I to the act".
But again, that is no protection to the board of governors of the C.B.C. as to how they are to use this money for these two purposes. It is perfectly clear that the house has already approved, on the authority that you used a few moments ago in dealing with the point of order on the previous amendment-the house has given approval to both parts of the scheme as proposed by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech in the passage I read from page 2133 of Hansard. The house has approved not only that there be two sources of revenue but, secondly, that there be two separate uses made of that revenue.
Unquestionably, this bill does not do that; and it should. The Auditor General in his report-and it will be recalled that this was discussed at an earlier stage-did criticize the C.B.C. in its financial statement for not keeping strictly separate financial accounting of radio broadcasting on the one hand and television on the other; and to the extent to which there had not been a clear separation of the financing of the C.B.C. in respect of those two activities up to that point, he was critical. Now, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the chairman made clear to us in committee, has separated those two functions, and it has financial reports with respect to those two functions. Therefore parliament ought to be consistent in the matter of assisting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this regard by earmarking those two funds.
This morning the Minister of Finance used the expression "earmarking". That is what he proposed in his budget speech ought to be done now-and only parliament can do it. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops, the following amendment:
That section 1 of Bill 340 be amended by adding in line 12 thereof after the word "Act" the following words:-
"and that the equivalent of the taxes so collected in respect of the goods mentioned in section six (a) of the said schedule be available to be used by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to sound broadcasting, and that the equivalent of the taxes collected in respect of goods mentioned in section six (b) of the said schedule be available to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be used in relation to television."
In a word that is simply carrying forward the scheme proposed by the minister in his budget speech, and that was echoed by the Minister of National Revenue in speaking on this measure at the resolution stage, and on second reading. It does something that parliament has done hitherto; because I think it is correct to say that without exception parliament has, in times past, in making funds

available to the C.B.C. either by way of grants, statutory items or loans, always earmarked such items for one purpose or the other-either sound broadcasting or television. Up to the present time provision for television has always been by way of loans, but they have always been earmarked for that purpose. If this amendment is not carried, then it means that we have departed from the principle which has always been followed hitherto by parliament with respect to grants made available to the C.B.C., whether made available by way of grants, statutory items or loans.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to put my hon. friend right in the references he has made to my budget speech. I know the quotations he made were strictly accurate; but the statements were in the broadest general terms, and there was certainly no intention in my mind, when I made them, that there should be two separate funds in the C.B.C. accounting, from the two attributed taxes. He said that that was approved by parliament.
Well, he is completely wrong in that. In the course of his budget speech a minister of finance takes occasion to review the general financial position of the country, and to make such announcements as require immediate legislative action.
In the case of the new method of financing the C.B.C., it seemed to me that the budget speech was the proper time to give this information. But the place for the detail of the legislation implementing that action is when the legislation is brought in.
Then, in the second place, when the bill to amend the Excise Tax Act was before the house it was made clear that under sections 6(a) and 6(b) of schedule I, to which my hon. friend referred, the separation was primarily for statistical purposes. As I indicated this morning in my statement, in the case of attributed taxes of this kind it would be impossible for the Department of National Revenue to attribute to the exact cent the amount received from a tax on a particular commodity coming under that schedule. And that is why the section now before us provides the language-
-amounts that, in the opinion oi the Minister of National Revenue, are equal to the taxes collected under part XI of the Excise Tax Act.
Now, on the amendment itself, let me say that I did not have the advantage of serving on the committee. As the house knows, I am acting today on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue; but my information is that this matter was discussed in committee-my hon. friend has indicated that-and that the
Canadian Broadcasting Act majority view in the committee, at any rate, was that it would be unduly restrictive to the C.B.C. to attempt to apportion these two revenues, and to restrict their expenditure of the amounts received to the amount attributed to radio operation on the one hand or to television operation on the other.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I correct the minister at that point. This is what happened: I raised this question. I did not introduce it by way of an amendment. Upon raising the question there was some expression of opinion in the committee and shortly after the discussion had begun the chairman said, "This is a very interesting point. If the committee wishes,
I shall discuss the matter with the minister." In the meantime it was decided to report the bill without amendment and there would be an opportunity to discuss it with the minister before the matter came up in the house. There were only three or at the most four members who expressed any opinion on that, and it was intimated to me that it would be better in the interests of my proposed amendment if I did not introduce and press it, so I did not. It could hardly be said that there was any majority view expressed in the committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I accept completely my hon. friend's statement. I was not a member of the committee and this information came to me from my deputy minister. My own personal position is that it would be unduly restrictive on the operations of the C.B.C. to attempt to apportion these two sources of revenue. I made it quite clear in my budget speech that in lieu of the $2.50 licence fee it was proposed to transfer to the C.B.C. the revenue from the tax on television and radio sets. I mentioned that our estimates were that in the coming year the revenue from the tax on television sets and parts would be approximately $6 million and that from radio and the like would perhaps be in excess of that. There was never any thought in my mind that the two items should be separated, and my present view is that they should not be. For that reason I would feel that I would have to oppose my hon. friend's amendment.
Before I sit down I may say that I have been informed that there are a great many young Rotarians sitting in the ladies' and public galleries and I want to extend our welcome to them. I am sure they are being suitably enlightened on the conduct of public business.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain the committee except to express our view in respect to this particular amendment. We are inclined to oppose it. We rather agree with the Minister of Finance that it would be a little restrictive. We think that more elbow room would be given in the operations of the

Canadian Broadcasting Act C.B.C. if there was just the one fund to which these revenues went and leave it to the C.B.C. to be fairly free in administering both sound broadcasting and television as they think is in the best interests of the listening public at large.
We do point out that this does not mean that separate accounts will not be kept. We will know how much is collected from the excise taxes on sound radio receiving sets and equipment and how much is collected on television sets and equipment. We will know too how much is spent on sound broadcasting and how much is spent on television. If there is a little overlapping I think we should permit the C.B.C. to do that if they think it is in the interests of radio and television that it should be done.
I think this is one time when we must express confidence that the C.B.C. will be desirous of giving Canadian listeners and viewers the best possible radio and television service they are able to give. I do not think that by allowing them to do so we are depreciating to any extent the value of one department of their activities in favour of another. We have sufficient confidence that they will look after both radio broadcasting and television equally.
I am not vigorously opposed to the amendment but we do feel that we should give enough latitude to the C.B.C. to carry out its own policy with respect to this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In our view the difficulties that would arise from this amendment greatly outweigh any advantages that might come from it. In fact I do not really see what the advantages are. For that reason and for the reasons already stated by the last two speakers, we think the committee should not accept the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I should state briefly why I feel that the amendment is proper. I suggest to the minister and to the committee that it is not a question of having any lack of confidence in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to administer these funds and to look after the interests of television and radio broadcasting in Canada. There is no question of lack of confidence in their ability to do that. It is rather a matter of being fair to them by giving them a definite rule or directions as to how the funds should be applied. I do not think it is quite fair to put this body in the position of having to decide what division it will make of the funds which parliament is now authorizing and whether they themselves will take perhaps an extra amount from the revenue derived from the tax on radio parts and use it in their television activities. I think it would be much more acceptable to this 
governing body to have a firm direction as to how they should apply these moneys.
I have not been able to find the transcript as yet, but it is my recollection-I say this subject to correction and I understand the transcript is not out yet-that the chairman of the board of governors did say in reply to a question by me that he expected to receive these funds as it were in two clearly divided amounts and that he expected also to apply them with respect to the fields from which they were initially derived. Of course he is not in a position to state policy in that regard, but that was the impression as to the policy which would be laid down for them to operate under.
That is all that this amendment is suggesting, that parliament should write into the bill a directive to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation so that they themselves will not be under any uncertainty as to how they are expected to apply these funds.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not want to start a debate on procedure, but it would seem to me that a good argument could be made to declare this amendment out of order. It should be proposed by a minister of the crown because it proposes some distribution of the money to be included in the grant, one part for a certain objective and another part for another. As I say, I shall accept it because we might be spending quite some time in discussing the point. I should like hon. members to look at citations 480, 481 and 482. They will see there that if any specific division of the money to be granted is to be made it should be mentioned in the resolution which is presented to the house and which has had the recommendation of the Governor General.
Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In my opinion the nays have it and I declare the amendment lost.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


James Sinclair: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 341, to implement a convention between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut fishery.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I might point out that this bill has been carefully considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and has been reported to the house without amendment.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Mr. Green:: There is one point I should like to raise on section 2. This is the interpretation section and we find the following definition in subsection (c):
"Convention waters" means the territorial waters and the high seas off the western coasts of Canada and the United States and the southern and western coasts of Alaska.
Then in other sections, notably section 5, there is a reference to what are described as "the territorial waters of Canada". That section, as I understand it, gives the Canadian protection officers the right to seize a ship, whether it is Canadian or American, in Canadian territorial waters, and there is the further right for that ship to be subjected to the process of law in Canadian courts. But there is no such right where a United States ship is seized in waters which are not Canadian territorial waters.
This is the third bill this session in which the question of territorial waters has come up. For example, we had Bill No. 293, the North Pacific Fisheries Convention Act, which of course referred to the treaty between Canada, the United States and Japan. In it there was a definition of "convention area" which was as follows:
"Convention area" means all waters, other than territorial waters, of the North Pacific ocean including the adjacent seas.
Again the words "territorial waters" were used in their general application. The third bill was Bill No. 44, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. There we find an actual definition of Canadian territorial waters reading as follows:
"Canadian territorial waters" means any waters designated by any act of the Parliament of Canada or by the governor in council as the territorial waters of Canada, or any waters not so designated being within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of Canada, and includes the inland waters of Canada.
Halibut Fishery Convention
Therefore it is quite obvious that Canadian territorial waters will be only those waters within three miles of our coast except where other waters have been designated either by act of parliament or by the governor in council.
The question of territorial waters has become of great importance on the west coast. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries will agree with that statement. There are different waters about which a question has arisen as to whether or not they are Canadian territorial waters, but I use as an example Hecate strait lying between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia. Under the terms of the Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Convention Act it will not be possible for a Canadian court to try a United States vessel fishing in the Hecate strait for halibut contrary to the terms of the convention because that strait has never been declared to be Canadian territorial waters.


James Sinclair: It is by order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Therefore it would be considered as high seas. Not only does the question arise under the halibut convention act but we also have a situation in the Hecate strait at the moment with respect to fishing for crabs. I asked the Department of Fisheries a question some weeks ago as to the amount of crabs that have been caught by Canadian vessels, United States vessels and vessels of other nations in the Hecate strait during the last five years. The answer will be found at page 3053 of Hansard. Figures were given for the catch by Canadian fishermen, but I was told that no information was available regarding the catch of crabs by United States fishermen, and that it was believed that no vessels of any other nation had been fishing for crabs in the Hecate strait.
A few days ago, on April 28, the parliamentary assistant advised the house that he had obtained information from the United States authorities with respect to the catch of crabs in the Hecate strait by the Americans. I find now from the two reports that the Americans did no fishing for crabs in the Hecate strait in 1948 or 1949 but that they did in the years 1950, 1951 and 1952, and caught a larger quantity of crabs than the Canadians. The figures are as follows: 1950, Canadians, 723,400 pounds and Americans, 880,292 pounds; 1951, Canadians, 838,100 pounds and Americans, 960,749 pounds; 1952, Canadians, 1,105,100 pounds and Americans, 1,169,062 pounds.
I am told by people interested-I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the report-that the Americans have depleted their own crab fishing waters and have moved into the Hecate
4738	HOUSE OF
Halibut Fishery Convention strait, which in my opinion should be considered to be Canadian territorial waters.
There is also the threat that the Japanese may come there to fish for crabs. According to a press dispatch of March 28 a Japanese crab fishing fleet of 13 ships was to leave in a few days on the first post-war Japanese fishing expedition to Bristol bay, Alaska. If Hecate strait is considered high seas and not Canadian territorial waters they are free to go into Hecate strait and fish for crabs because, as the minister knows, crabs are not covered by the treaty between Canada, the United States and Japan.
The whole question is of concern on the west coast, and I should like to point out again that steps should be taken by Canada to declare Hecate strait to be Canadian territorial waters. That would enable us to deal with the crab situation, and it would also enable us to deal with United States ships fishing in that strait for halibut under this convention which is to be enforced, so far as Canada is concerned, under the provisions of the bill we are now considering.
I place these suggestions before the minister, and I hope he will be able to give the committee some assurance that the situation will be met.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, as far as the first point is concerned, convention waters in this bill, unlike the other bill-the North Pacific convention-include both the high seas and the territorial waters of British Columbia, the west coast of the United States and the Alaskan shores, with the powers of arrest in those areas. This convention has used this description of convention waters for the last 30 years.
The halibut fishery of the entire waters, both our own waters and the high seas, is under the control of this international commission. If either a Canadian or American ship is found violating the regulations in our own territorial waters, that ship is arrested by Canadian officers and brought before Canadian courts. Similarly, if a Canadian ship were found in territorial waters off Alaska or off the mainland of the United States, which areas are also covered by this convention, then that ship would be arrested by a United States patrol vessel and brought to justice in United States courts under the terms of the American act corresponding to this act. If a Canadian patrol vessel arrests a Canadian ship upon the high seas, it is brought before Canadian courts. If it arrests an American ship that ship is turned over to the American authorities and prosecution is launched by the American authorities. American patrol ships act in similar fashion.


In the three fishery acts mentioned by the member for Vancouver-Quadra there is no definition of territorial waters. Territorial waters are defined in other acts. As the hon. member mentions the delineation of territorial waters is a very difficult question. The matter was discussed at length in the committee. It is always very easy to suggest that a country with rich fisheries off its shores should announce arbitrarily that it will extend its territorial waters from 3 miles to 12 miles, or even to 100 miles as has sometimes been suggested. However, other nations will then claim that they have historic rights in those fisheries acquired over the years. They rely on the fact that the British navy many years ago established the doctrine of the freedom of the seas.
In nations such as ours, with rich fisheries off our coasts, there is always pressure to extend our territorial waters unilaterally- arbitrarily and by unilateral action on our part. Such action was taken three years ago by one European country, which resulted in reprisals being taken by the country excluded, Britain. Those reprisals were not taken by the government of Great Britain but by the ports and labour unions of Great Britain and as was explained in the fisheries committee, repercussions from this action have been responsible for some of the troubles of our Canadian fishermen finding markets in the United States today. It shows the possible ramifications. I am quite sure that if this country were to take arbitrary action today to extend our territorial waters to exclude United States fishing vessels there would be great demands for immediate action in reprisal by the United States fishermen. When you remember that almost 80 per cent of our exported fish is sold to the United States you will see that such action taken unilaterally by us would be very short range, and lead to grave problems.
We are quite conscious of the problem. Some three years ago the United Nations general assembly raised the question for member nations. Each nation has set up a legal committee to study the question so far as their own waters are concerned. Our committee is headed by Dean George Curtis, the dean of law of the University of British Columbia, and it has not yet brought down its recommendations. When it has brought them down we shall proceed in concert with other nations to try to get multilateral agreements on territorial waters which will be respected and which will not lead to the reprisals that would likely result if we were to go ahead by ourselves.
As far as Hecate strait is concerned, it was pointed out to the fisheries committee that by order in council in 1909 Canada did assert

that Hecate strait was territorial water, with this important factor; that the United States had claimed historical use of those fishing grounds. They were the only nation to have used the grounds other than ourselves, and the situation was left as it was. If ships of other nations were to fish in Hecate strait I would expect this government to take appropriate action. The United States however claims to have historic rights, because they have been fishing that area for many years. No decision has ever been pronounced on this assertion.
As far as halibut is concerned it does not matter whether Hecate strait is territorial water or is not territorial water. In either case it would come under the regulations of this convention and United States ships would be as free to fish it as Canadian ships are.


Howard Charles Green: There would be a difference in the courts in which offenders would be tried.


James Sinclair: The only difference would be the court in which the offending ships would be tried. I would like to make the comment, however, that in 30 years of this treaty there has never been a suggestion from fishermen on either side of the boundary that the courts of either country have given preferential treatment to their own nationals. Nothing could work out better than that. As far as the halibut fishery is concerned I repeat that whether Hecate strait is territorial waters or high seas this convention would apply and the fishery would be controlled just as it is now for the entire area.
Crab fishing does not properly come under this bill, but it is a matter of interest. There are great quantities of a certain species of crab in Hecate strait and in the waters surrounding the Queen Charlotte islands. We have never been able to exploit them fully because we have never found big enough markets for them. With all due deference to the maritimes this crab is just as succulent and tasty as the eastern lobster but it requires much more labour to prepare for canning or freezing and the crab must be alive right to the point of processing. Labour costs in the crab canneries on the west coast have been so high that there has been only limited market for the products. The fresh market on the west coast is pretty well limited to the areas to which those crabs can be transported alive.
The Japanese have fished in the past off the Alaskan coast in Bristol bay and Bering sea for very large king-size crabs from which they are able to obtain larger pieces of flesh with a consequent lowering of canning costs. The Americans have been fishing crab in
Halibut Fishery Convention Hecate strait, and we have this spring given licences to three Canadian boats to engage in the same fishing and sell their catch in Seattle.
The west coast market for fresh crab has been pretty thoroughly saturated as far as Canadian outlets are concerned. If our fishermen are going to fish them more extensively we will have to look for American markets and, in those markets, they will have to be delivered alive. It means that there is a very limited field for fishing. Crab and ground fish of the west coast are two fish which we, under the terms of the convention to which the hon. member has referred, the international North Pacific convention, should now begin to study scientifically and to conserve with the aim of bringing them under the convention.
That is the position as far as territorial waters are concerned. No matter how our territorial waters are defined, this treaty will apply to them, the only real distinction being made in the powers of arrest of ships within and without territorial waters.


Howard Charles Green: Have the Americans any historic right to fish in Hecate strait for crab?


James Sinclair: Historic right of fishing has never been tied down to one species of fish. Halibut and cod have been the main fish caught in Hecate strait by Americans in the years since the United States bought Alaska from the Russians. Actually commercial fishing for crab is a fairly recent development for both the United States and ourselves.


Howard Charles Green: The position in regard to Hecate strait is that the United States is considered to have a historic right to fish there for any kind of fish?


James Sinclair: They assert that. We have never challenged it actually in the court. We have asserted in this order in council of 1909 that we regard Hecate strait as territorial water.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean that Hecate strait is territorial water as against every nation except the United States?


James Sinclair: That is my understanding.


Howard Charles Green: That is the sum and substance of the position?


James Sinclair: Of the order in council of 1909.


Howard Charles Green: Can you have a position of that kind, where waters are considered to be Canadian territorial waters except as against the United States?


James Sinclair: I am no legal authority, and all I can say is that we have a similar situation in Newfoundland along what is called the

Trade Marks Act
French shore. The Newfoundland members can correct my history on this. Apparently that part of Newfoundland was explored by the French, and then when the French were driven out they were given by treaty certain fishing rights in the territorial waters, and given the right to establish drying stages along the shore. Those rights existed for years before Newfoundland was part of Canada.
International law on territorial waters is one of the more obscure branches of law, and that was one of the reasons the United Nations committee was anxious to have it clarified. I am sure the report brought down by Dean Curtis and his advisers will help to clarify the Canadian position.


Howard Charles Green: In view of this halibut convention, which has worked so well for many years, is the United States taking a strong stand against Canada declaring Hecate strait as Canadian territorial waters, even as against the United States?


James Sinclair: I could not answer that.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government planning to take steps in an endeavour to get this situation cleared up so these straits may be declared Canadian territorial waters?


James Sinclair: All I can say again is that this order in council, which was mentioned in the fisheries committee, did assert our sovereignty over those waters as long ago as 1909. As to what steps will be recommended or what action the government will take, that will be announced in due course. It is not a fisheries matter, but one of international law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 316, relating to trade marks and unfair competition.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: This bill has been considered by the standing committee on banking and commerce and has been returned to this house with an amendment to section 6.
On section 1-Short title.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say a word on this bill. The banking and commerce committee had the great advantage of having with them the gentlemen who had a great deal to do with the report of the trade marks law revision committee. I refer particularly to Mr. Harold Fox, Mr. Osborne and Mr. Christopher Robinson representing the patent institute of Canada. The matter was given careful study in great detail in the committee, and the principles embodied in the bill were clearly defined. I think one could say that the committee had an especially good chance to review the matter with the assistance of these gentlemen.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Since there are 68 sections in the bill, and in view of the study that was made by the committee, would hon. members be prepared to carry the bill as amended?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-When mark or name confusing.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps you might read to us, Mr. Chairman, the amendment or amendments made to section 6?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The amendments which were made to section 6 added the words "would be" three times; the first time in line 25; the second time in line 31; and the third time in line 39 on page 4 of the bill. Subsection 2 of section 6 would then read:
The use of a trade mark causes confusion with another trade mark if the use of both trade marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference-
The same amendment is made in the other two places.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather that the words "would be" take the place of "is" in each of those cases.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall section 6 as amended carry?
Section as amended agreed to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the remaining sections carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Ordinarily I dislike dealing with a thing in this omnibus manner. I do feel that in this case, for the reasons I have given, the matter has had the closest consideration of the committee and for that reason I am prepared to consent.
Sections 7 to 68 inclusive agreed to.


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


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minisler of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, to provide for the payment of unemployment insurance benefit to insured persons who, while otherwise unemployed and entitled to benefit, become incapacitated for work by reason of illness or injury.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The effect of the bill to be founded on this resolution will be that a person who is in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit will continue to receive such benefit, notwithstanding the fact that he may be incapable of or unavailable for employment by reason of illness, injury or quarantine.
The law as it now stands requires the unemployment insurance commission to deny benefit to a claimant in respect of any day on which he is incapable of or unavailable for work. These are normal conditions for the orthodox type of unemployment insurance, and they were essential during the early development of the Canadian scheme. We now seek to modify those conditions.
Experience has shown that considerable hardship resulted from the application of the conditions to which I have referred, in that benefits were denied unemployed persons simply because they fell El or were injured. I think that we can all agree that a person who is unemployed, and drawing benefits, needs these benefits when he is sick just as much as and more than when he is well. The desire to do something about it has been in our minds for quite a while, and the delay in putting such a plan into effect has been caused by long and intensive study to see how jurisdictional and administrative difficulties might be overcame. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the extension of this study is the only reason I am so late in the session in introducing this legislation. I believe that most of these difficulties have now been solved in so far as they are related to the step now proposed.
I feel that I should point out to hon. members that this proposal does not extend to the insured worker who becomes unemployed because of sickness or accident. However, benefit can be paid to such a worker after he has recovered from the illness, if no suitable work is then available for him.
There will be no change in the rate of benefit nor in the method- by which the dura-
Unemployment Insurance Act tion of benefit is established. I am unable to give a precise estimate of the added cost to the fund. It is not felt that the plan will add materially to the number of insured persons filing claims for benefit. It will of course increase the number of days for which benefits are paid. It is felt that the proposal can be taken care of, for the present at any rate, without asking for additional contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. I do not believe that the additional cost of administration will be great.
It is realized that the proposed amendment does not go as far as has been suggested by the labour congresses, by some members of this chamber and iby others. However, the plan will give the commission some very useful experience in this further extension of unemployment insurance benefits.
The proposed amendment has been considered by the unemployment insurance advisory committee and that committee has been pleased to report favourably thereon.
I recommend the resolution to the committee.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I should like to compliment the minister on this improvement to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think it is a measure that is overdue. The minister has given some explanation of the reasons why it was not brought in previously. I have felt for a long time that such provision should be made in the regulations governing the Unemployment Insurance Act, because of the fact that, under the old system, undoubtedly discrimination was practised against those people who, by reason of the fact that they registered in large urban centres, were required to report regularly for work to their respective offices whereas in some parts of Canada, where they were in remote areas, they could do so by other means.
Of course, under those circumstances, it was not possible to check up on the health of the applicant. Accordingly if he had the misfortune to become ill or to suffer accident, unless there was work available for him such matters went by the board; no one knew anything -about them at all. Because of this situation, those workers in urban centres suffered by reason of discrimination. Immediately they became ill, the local office knew about it and their benefits ceased.
I do not think this measure is contingent upon the condition of the fund because, as the minister has intimated, I do not believe that the amounts so expended will be large. Hence the condition of the fund will not be jeopardized to any degree at all. I think that a measure such as this one should be predicated upon simple justice, should be a matter

Unemployment Insurance Act of policy, and should have no relation to the actual contribution to the fund. I feel that this action could have been taken long ago, but it is better late than never.
The minister said that while this proposal does not extend to the insured worker who becomes unemployed because of illness, accident or any other reason relating to his health, nevertheless, when the person who has been unemployed for that reason is again available for employment, that fact does not interfere with his obtaining benefits provided suitable work is not available. Of course that situation is not new. That has been the situation right along. If a worker took ill and then upon his recovery reported to the local office but found that suitable employment was not available to him, even if the employment he was now able to take was not the same as that which he had previously taken, nevertheless he then became eligible for benefits, provided he had the necessary contributions to his credit. That therefore is not a new matter.
I am pleased, as I said before, that the minister has brought in this measure. I am sure it will receive the wholehearted support of this committee. Just before I close my remarks-although I know the matter is not pertinent to this measure'-may I say I could have wished that, in considering the regulations governing the act, the minister had seen fit to remove section 5(a)(i). I still have hopes in that direction.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, we too are glad to see this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope the minister will not mind if I do not congratulate him on bringing it in. I am glad he brought it in. We have been urging such an amendment for years. As he indicated, I doubt whether any large amounts in benefits will be paid out under this provision. Nevertheless, it is a good thing to have the provision in the act so that when a man or woman becomes unemployed, is drawing unemployment insurance benefits, and takes ill during the period of his or her unemployment, he or she, because of that illness, will not be deprived of unemployment insurance benefits.
We have always maintained that when a person is ill and unemployed at the same time, he would surely need assistance more than he did before. I am sorry the minister has not seen fit to bring down an amendment to the act that would make unemployment because of sickness insurable unemployment. The two labour congresses urged this action on the minister in their briefs this year, and I imagine they have done so in other years as well. I believe the fund could well stand that burden at the present time without any

increase in the contributions made by employees, employers or the government. As at the end of December, 1952, the fund stood at over $778 million. I figured out that last year the fund grew by about $9,500,000 a month and that, at the present time, assuming the same rate of growth in the fund has continued, the unemployment insurance fund amounts to well over $800 million.
I do not think the government should ever allow a period of unemployment to develop to such an extent as was provided for when the Unemployment Insurance Act was first passed. I believe it was intended to carry an unemployment load of approximately 10 per cent over a period of time.
I am particularly glad, though, that the minister proposes to make this amendment at the present time. I have found that many persons covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act have felt that merely by contributing to the fund they have been .building up a reserve on which they could draw at any time, even upon retirement from work whatever the reason for retirement. I know that some people who should know better were telling insured persons that that right did exist, that a pool had accumulated in their name in the fund which belonged to them, and on which they were entitled to draw.
I have always realized that this is an insurance measure, and that unless a contributor met the requirement of being involuntarily unemployed, he was no more entitled to draw anything out of the fund than a person contributing to fire insurance could draw from that fund if he had suffered no loss by fire. I have been paying fire insurance premiums on my house since 1913, and shall continue to do so unless I decide to sell the house and live in rented quarters. But I am entitled to no return on the premiums I have paid, other than the protection I am given in case of fire.
Under this measure, which I am sure the house will accept, we will meet a certain physical need, and I believe also a psychological need. I would hope, however, that the unemployment insurance commission might have under consideration the fact that unemployment through illness should be covered by the act. I believe the time has come when that can be done. While we have to accept this as being satisfactory for the moment, I am sure that some day in the not too distant future we shall have the other as well.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only a few words at this time. I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister- and I believe I would be correct in using that word-upon having introduced this legislation.
It is a good thing that occasionally we have general elections. I am not suggesting the minister brought this legislation down for

any political purpose; but it does seem to me that just before elections we get things done that we have been trying for years to have done. I am sure all hon. members interested in labour problems will be pleased to see this measure.
A number of us have been pressing for legislation of this kind. I can remember that on many occasions in the house I have pointed out instances in my own riding and in other places where men who had been receiving unemployment insurance became ill, and after that were physically unable to attend at the unemployment insurance office to receive their cheques. Because of that they have been barred from unemployment insurance, through a condition beyond their control. Work has not been available for them, but because of their illness they have been disqualified.
It would appear that the government recognizes that this was an unfair practice, and should be remedied. After all these years, during which we have been pressing for a remedy, it is now brought in. Therefore I believe the minister deserves some credit even at this late date for introducing the legislation. He is the only minister we have had who has seen fit to do it.
I shall not discuss the matter at greater length, because I have done so on many other occasions. This party has always supported a measure of this kind, and we are now glad to see that action is being taken.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, I should iike to add a word of congratulation to the minister, and to join in what has been said by hon. members who have immediately preceded me in this discussion. This measure is one the benefits of which will be far-reaching, and I am sure one which will be greatly appreciated in my constituency. It was only a week ago that I spoke to the Minister of Labour on this point, arising from the fact that I had received communications suggesting what is now to be done in this legislation. I think the Canadian people by and large will appreciate this step forward.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has said that what is here suggested may not be everything that an incapacitated worker would like to see; but certainly it is a step forward. We must realize that Rome was not built in a day. This is humanitarian legislation in the interests of those who become incapacitated, and it will be beneficial to all Canadians, whether or not they are on the labour market. I believe this measure reflects credit upon the membership of the House of Commons, and I welcome it.


Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister for having introduced this resolution
Unemployment Insurance Act preceding legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, to provide for the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to insured persons who, while otherwise unemployed and entitled to benefit, become incapacitated for work by reason of illness or injury.
This is a matter I have discussed with the minister from time to time. I take this opportunity to say that those of us who support the present administration derive some special sense of satisfaction from this welcome and worth-while legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, has said, we in this group are glad to see this legislation being brought down. However, while I have a high regard for the Minister of Labour, and am pleased to see him bringing in this legislation, I do not think this is the time to extend congratulations to the minister in the way we have witnessed from the last two speakers.
The plain fact of the matter is-and I have documentary evidence on my desk; hon. members do not have to rely upon my assertions-that for many years this issue has been raised in the House of Commons from this section of the house, and only from this section. The government has been pressed to do something about it, and this has been done almost exclusively by the hon. member for Vancouver East and by myself. It is very interesting now to discover the allies we have 

and of course we welcome their support. However, it might have hastened the introduction of the legislation if we had had their vocal support some years ago, instead of waiting until the government actually brings in the legislation.
I shall not take the time of the committee to read all the debates that have taken place. As a matter of fact, I could not do it in the 40 minutes at my disposal. I shall not even go to the trouble of giving the committee all the Hansard references, but I do think some of them should be on the record.
For example, I find that on April 19, 1948, over five "years ago, the hon. member for Vancouver East and I raised this question on the estimates of the then minister of labour, the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell. On that occasion, and this is the only one I can recall, we were given a little vocal support by a Liberal, the then hon. member for Vancouver North, now the Minister of Fisheries.
That support came about in this way. The hon. member for Vancouver East and I had mentioned cases of individuals who had received unemployment insurance benefits but had been cut off because they had sub-

Unemployment Insurance Act sequently taken ill. Those who remember our late friend, the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, can well realize the sort of reply he gave us. He said he had never heard of cases of that kind and that if we would just send over our material to him on a confidential basis he would have the matter looked into, but he did not believe it just because somebody had written to us about it. The matters were not confidential, so far as we were concerned at any rate, and both the hon. member for Vancouver East and I indicated that we would give evidence of this type of hardship to the minister. As I say, on that occasion-and it was the only occasion across the years that any support came to us from any Liberal on the floor of the house-the then hon. member for Vancouver North, now the Minister of Fisheries, said, as reported on page 3115 of Hansard:
I can tell the minister it is not an unusual case. I know of several such cases in the shipyards of North Vancouver, where men went on unemployment insurance and then became ill. There was still no work for them, but their benefits were cut off. Whatever minute saving might be made cannot compare as against the distress to such a man who, if he needed the benefits when he was well, certainly needed them far more when he was sick.
So much for the debate of 1948. When we laid the issue squarely before the then minister of labour, we got nowhere with it. I find on looking into Hansard for 1949 that on April 4, as reported on page 2309, we from this group raised this question again. On that occasion we endeavoured, as we had on other occasions, to make crystal-clear what we were asking for. Then I would refer also to page 2882 of Hansard for December 3, 1949. In other words, we raised it in both April and December of that year. As reported on that page, I said:
I propose to deal with just one of the changes that could be made. I shall review it briefly because I have done it on a number of occasions. I am sure I need only to outline my contention to remind the Minister of Labour of the various points in the argument. It has to do with the case of a worker who becomes unemployed, qualifies for unemployment insurance benefits, and then while drawing those benefits becomes ill. As the minister knows, in that situation the worker's 'unemployment insurance benefits are cut off even though there may still be no employment for him.
That is taken from my remarks on December 3, 1949. I might say also there were order paper questions on pages 441 and 1395 of Hansard of the second session of 1949 showing our persistence in our efforts to persuade the government to deal with this matter.
In 1951, when the present minister had assumed the portfolio, we debated the matter on June 30, and the record will be found starting at page 5000 of Hansard. Anyone who

is interested will find that in 1952 we raised this matter on three occasions, on June 4, June 10 and June 18.
By that time we were at least getting the Minister of Labour to admit to us that this was something that was being studied, but that was as far as we could get. As a matter of fact, even when the minister did tell us that the matter was being studied he said also that this involved the whole question of a broad sickness benefit program which was really in the field of health insurance. So we were not given a great deal of encouragement that action would be taken on this matter.
We raised the matter again this year in the form of questions on the order paper on February 4, which can be found on pages 1602 and 1603 of Hansard. I put a number of questions which I shall not take the time to read because they are in this session's Hansard. The upshot of the answers was that the problem was a difficult one and the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission were still studying it, but there was no action as yet.
We kept at it and no longer ago than March 25, as hon. members will remember, I asked, this time on the orders of the day, whether legislation of this nature would be brought down at this session. On that occasion the minister expressed his regret that he was not in a position to answer my question. Believe it or not, I felt that was the most hopeful reply we had had in five years. On all previous occasions we were given answers which were clearly in the negative, but when the minister was not able to give an answer I dared to hope that the matter was really under consideration. In view of the fact that an election was not far off-I see tonight's paper says it is to be on August 10 -I hoped that we might get action at this session.
As I say, we welcome this. Of course we welcome it because we have been asking for it persistently across the years, and without a great deal of the kind of support that is being expressed for it today. I think the record should be clear that this is something that is given by this government only under pressure. It is also given because of certain other developments that have taken place recently. The labour congresses, as the minister indicated in the oblique reference he made in his remarks a while ago, are asking for something more than this. They are asking for a program of sickness benefits to be included in the unemployment insurance legislation, which of course is not met by the amendment the minister is now making.
I am sure that as soon as this phase of the matter has been acted upon by the passing of

this amending bill the government will have from the labour congresses a request that the provisions be extended to include anyone who is paying into the fund and is out of work because of illness. As a matter of fact it will not be very long until the minister and his officials will run into that situation. They will find that there will be people who are ill and who are drawing benefits by virtue of the fact that at the time they were laid off they were well, and there will be others who have paid into the fund for some considerable period, who are off work because of illness and who will not be entitled to draw benefits. In some cases workers living side by side will be receiving different treatment. That is a discrepancy which may be explained technically and legally, but it will be most annoying to the workers concerned. The government may as well face the fact that there will be great pressure to extend this principle to include a broad program of sickness benefits.
I have referred to the number of occasions in the past when we have asked for the legislation which is now being introduced. I may say that each time we have asked for it we have suggested that what we were asking for was just a step in the direction of a more complete program, so that now that we are getting this step we express the hope that it will not be long until the government will move on to a wider program of sickness benefits, either as part of the unemployment insurance legislation or as part of a national health insurance program.
I have had occasion previously to read from this little booklet which I hold in my hand, but I think it is appropriate that I should pick it up again on this occasion. This is a very interesting little booklet entitled "Canada Plans Security", by George F. Davidson. Dr. Davidson is now deputy minister of welfare in the Department of National Health and Welfare, but he was not a federal civil servant when he wrote this booklet. It was written in the Canadian forces series, those little booklets that were produced for the troops overseas during world war II so they might be acquainted with what was going on back home. Dr. Davidson, in his very well written little booklet, told the troops overseas what plans were being made back home in the realm of social security. On pages 12 and 13 he says this:
There still remains the problem of loss of Income due to sickness. Unemployment insurance only covers the worker who has lost a job and is still available for employment. If you are sick, you aren't available for employment-so you don't get unemployment insurance.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Then Dr. Davidson went on to say this: Once health insurance is finally put into operation, it probably won't be long until the Unemployment Insurance Act is amended to provide for payment of benefits during the period of a workman's illness. If that happens then a worker off for sickness would get unemployment insurance sickness benefit to make up for lost wages and would have his medical and hospital expenses met out of the health insurance fund-to which he has been contributing.
It would appear that back in 1944 Dr. Davidson was hopeful that the government of Canada would not too long delay the introduction of a health insurance program, and it was his view that as soon as that had taken place, then whoever was the minister of labour would introduce an appropriate amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for sickness benefits to be included in that legislation.
It is a shame that we have had to wait so long for national health insurance. I am glad the Minister of Labour has finally decided that he cannot wait any longer for his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to bring in that legislation, and has decided that without any further delay at least this step should be taken in relation to unemployment insurance benefits. This is a step toward the fulfilment of one plank in a health insurance program, from which there is no turning back, and just as it was indicated to the men in the forces in 1944 that it would not be long until there would be sickness benefits for workers when they were oil work because of illness, I think that hope should be implemented in a more complete manner than is indicated by the legislation now being introduced. I hope this will be the impetus toward a complete health insurance program.
There is another aspect of this question about which I should like to say a word. One of the reasons I am glad the minister has taken this step is that there has been certain agitation on the part of employers in the country to reduce the amount of the premium. That agitation of course is based on the fact that the fund has grown to a considerable size, and to some people it does seem a plausible step to take. In my view-and this is the view of the labour congresses and the view of the average worker-the step to take is not to reduce the premiums that workers or employers are required to pay, but to increase the benefits paid out of the fund.
After all, a reduction of a cent a day would mean nothing to the average worker, but an increase in the benefit would really mean something to him. I am glad that the minister, faced with the agitation arising from the fact that the fund has become so large, has
4746	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act decided that any step he does take should be in the direction of increasing the benefits rather than in the direction of reducing the premium. I remind the minister that on one .previous occasion, I believe it was on June 4, 1952, I had something to say about overfunding of the unemployment insurance fund. In particular I drew to his attention the views of the Canadian Congress of Labour as expressed in the Canadian Unionist of May, 1952. In that issue of that publication Professor John S. Morgan, who is an authority on these matters, was quoted, and the congress expressed its own view that a fund of this sort should not be funded so high that you have this generation paying for the security of the next or a later generation.
As these authorities point out, it is better to put it on something like a ten-year basis so that those who are paying premiums get the benefit of what they are paying, although there should be a certain minimum below which the fund should not fall. But the time comes when the size of the fund really requires either that the premiums be reduced or that the benefits be increased, and I submit that as between those two choices the one to follow is to increase the benefits.
We are glad this measure moves in that direction. We think the minister could have moved further by meeting the desire of the congresses that sickness of workers covered by the unemployment insurance fund be provided for generally. But at any rate we have got our foot in the door on this issue. We are getting something that can be called a form of sickness benefit, but I hope it will not be long until we have sickness benefits for workers generally at the time when they need them, and that they will be related to and integrated into an over-all health insurance program at an early date.
I hope the minister will not mind if we in this corner do not speak on this occasion in quite the congratulatory terms that members of his own party are using. He has been here through the years and has witnessed the fight that we have put up for this step. Therefore we are glad to see it taken, but I hope it will be recognized as what it is, certainly as what it should be, only a step toward wider protection of the workers of the country against the loss of income they suffer not only because of loss of employment but on account of illness.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Would the benefit be payable in the case of an employee who, after he has become unemployed, is injured in his own home?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman; it will not matter where the worker may have been


injured. The important point is whether he is unemployed and whether he is already in receipt of unemployment insurance.


Howard Charles Green: Will the employee be penalized if he happens to incur a chronic disease rather than a temporary illness? For example, under the hospital insurance plan of British Columbia a great deal of difficulty has been caused through the attempt to differentiate between an acute illness and a chronic illness. The person with a chronic illness does not get hospital insurance paid while he is laid up. I hope there will be no such distinction in the case of the benefit to be provided by the bill to follow the resolution. In other words, I would hope that any illness will be covered regardless of whether it is temporary or turns out to be a chronic illness.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I could best explain by stating an example. When a worker becomes unemployed because of lack of employment he has six waiting days, counting the noncompensable day. We will assume that at the end of the six days our office rules that he has 100 benefit days to his credit. If he continued to be unemployed, he would receive benefits for 100 days. Should he become ill, injured or in quarantine during that period, while in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, he would be able to draw benefits up to the 100 days and no longer.


Howard Charles Green: If it should turn out that he had an incurable disease, he would be able to draw the full amount of the benefits standing to his credit?


Milton Fowler Gregg: But not beyond the number of days for which unemployment benefits would otherwise stand to his credit.


Howard Charles Green: What happens if an employee becomes unemployed because he is ill?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: What happens if an employee loses his employment because he is ill?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As I stated in my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, he would not be eligible for benefits under this amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think there should be some measure on our statute books which would protect that employee?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think it is a matter which I can discuss under this amendment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the minister whether he means to say that the employee, in the circumstances which he illustrated, would be eligible for his full 100 days' benefits

whether employment was offered to him within that time or not?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre indicated in his remarks that a long period has passed during which this matter was under discussion, and he was also anxious to keep the record straight. I would like to tell him that in the files I inherited in the unemployment insurance commission there was a report of a study made, starting back in 1949, to which he referred a while ago. I would like to say that out of respect for my predecessor. The question just raised is one of many that have come up in that study in trying to visualize administration. I think I can say that, technically, if there is employment available to that worker in receipt of unemployment insurance while sick, our officials should cut him off.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: But I will say that we do not propose to have doctors and social workers go and find out.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think that is a very important point, if the department is prepared to go so far as to extend those benefits to the man for the total period that is due to him despite the fact that employment is available subsequent to his illness. I think the house should know whether that is the case. It is going quite a step, and I think when the minister brings down the bill he should make that point clear.


Mr. Starr:: I would like to add a word to what has been said this afternoon. I do so as a new member who has only been here one session. Irrespective of who argued this resolution and that the act be amended to give these benefits, I think the main thing we should be happy about is that workers in the factories who are dependent upon unemployment insurance benefits will be pleased about this resolution being brought forward by the Minister of Labour. They will benefit from that action.
I wish to commend the Minister of Labour, to congratulate him and also those who have urged in years gone by that this legislation be passed. I hope this is only a first step, and that the government will keep in mind that it is only a first step toward the revamping of the whole Unemployment Insurance Act. I realize that when the legislation was instituted finances were very scarce and naturally benefits had to be held to a minimum. With the large amount of money that has now been accumulated under the act, I feel that further steps should be taken to implement and amend the act so that workers during times of unemployment will receive benefits.
Fair Employment Practices
I have in mind a matter that I shall probably raise when the estimates are before us; and I refer to supplementary benefits. The ben-fits themselves were increased last July, but supplementary benefits were left as they were prior to that time. I think they should be increased in conformity with the benefits.
I wish to congratulate the minister on what he has done, and I am sure it will be welcomed by all people.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 366, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES


Milton Fowler Gregg: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 100, to prevent discrimination in regard to employment and membership in trade unions by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I point out that this bill has been considered by the standing committee on industrial relations and reported to this house with amendments to section 2, section 4 and section 6 and a section 13 added.
On section 1-Short title.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, as you have said this bill has been very carefully considered by the standing committee on industrial relations. In that connection I would like to thank most heartily the chairman and members of that committee for the valuable sessions. they put in on it, and particularly for the fact that they called in and provided opportunity for many individuals and bodies to make representations, which covered considerable ground and expressed varying views.
As a result of the deliberations of the committee a report was tabled which recommended four amendments, all of which I am quite prepared to accept, Mr. Chairman.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendments which the minister will move in due time and which were suggested by the committee have substantially improved the bill. I must say that I am in complete accord with every one of them, and I think the committee as a whole was in accord with the recommendations which were finally for-

Fair Employment Practices warded. There were some who were opposed, and some representations were made in opposition to the bill, but I think those who did oppose were under a misapprehension. I am sure that in the course of time it will be adequately demonstrated to them that they were under some misapprehension as to the intent of the bill. I am quite sure that none will suffer by reason of this legislation.
There is only one other comment I would like to make, and it is that I still regret that provision was not made in this bill for an educational program. I think the whole matter of education should go hand in hand with the administration of this bill. I know you cannot promote such a program unless provision is made to pay the cost of it. The very fact that no provision is made for an appropriation for this work would indicate that there is no intention to proceed with it. I do not mean to say that there is no intention to proceed with the administration of this act, because I understand that plans are already under way to take care of it within the existing structure of the department. I feel that the officers of the department are fairly well loaded down with work, and that at best it could not receive the attention which is due to such an important piece of legislation. As I said on a previous occasion, I see no provision in the bill for the educational program which I am certain is necessary if this legislation is to attain its full scope.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Ever since this matter was under consideration, without mentioning the verboten word "education" in this house, I have always considered that section 10 on page 5 of the bill takes care of the situation. It reads as follows:
The minister where he deems it expedient may undertake or cause to be undertaken such inquiries and other measures as appear advisable to him to promote the purposes of the act.
Provided, as the hon. member has said, the cost of such measures are covered in the estimates, I have taken that as authority to carry out the kind of thing she has in mind.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I hope the minister will follow this up very seriously. I am sure that if he does so he will find that it is necessary to make some provision in his estimates for the necessary expenses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can affirm, as the previous speakers have done already, what you said, sir, about the careful study given to this bill by the committee on industrial relations, of which I have the honour to be a member. We heard representations from many bodies. Their briefs were well prepared and useful. We in this group did not agree with the briefs that expressed some opposition to this bill, but at any rate even those briefs were

a contribution in that they provoked discussion in the committee. When the bill was finally passed by the committee, it was a very definite and deliberate decision on the part of the committee on industrial relations.
We are glad to know that the minister, on behalf of the government, is prepared to accept the amendments that were made to the bill in the committee. I believe there were four of them, two of which were not necessary in my view but to which we have no objection. The other two were very important. They were among the changes that were proposed when we debated this bill at the second reading stage, and were recommended to the house by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I refer in particular to the change whereby "national origin" is made to include nationality as well as ancestry. I refer also to the change whereby application forms and other methods of inquiry are added to advertisements in the section which outlines certain prohibitions. We feel that both these changes were all .to the good. We are pleased the committee accepted them, and that the minister is prepared to accept them on behalf of the government.
As was indicated earlier by my colleague the member for Winnipeg North, and by others, we too feel that there is a real importance to the educational process as part of this effort to eliminate prejudice as well as discrimination which is the result of prejudice, and I am glad to know that the minister takes seriously the rights in that connection that are given to him under section 10 of the bill.
Because we all agree, and because we are all in support of the bill, it is unnecessary to speak at length. I did feel, however, on the behalf of this party, that I should express our pleasure that the bill has been introduced, and our pleasure that it is being enacted by parliament at this time.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to say a word on this bill, since I was a member of the committee on industrial relations. I do not intend to speak at great length because the committee all agreed that the bill should pass. I was glad to have the minister's explanation of section 10. If you will recall, sir, when this question was first brought up in the house this year, I expressed the view that I did not think you could get the people to accept a measure such as this merely by enacting a piece of legislation or by creating an offence. I said I thought something more had to accompany this measure, and that was education.

The question did come up in the committee, and now the minister has explained that in his judgment section 10 of the bill covers some form of education. I want to join with those who have expressed the belief that one of the essentials necessary to carrying out the hopes expressed in this bill is an extensive educational program. The amendments were agreed to by the committee, Mr. Chairman, and as one of the members of the committee I agreed to the bill, so I do not think it is necessary to say any more at this time.


Mr. Crestohl:: Before the committee commences a study of the bill section by section, I have a few general remarks to make for which I ask the indulgence of the house. I read carefully, Mr. Chairman, the remarks made by the minister and other members who spoke on this measure when it was presented for second reading. While, like everyone else, I am in complete agreement with the bill, I should like to present for the consideration of the committee some additional observations.
Frequent reference has been made by hon. members who spoke on this measure to the proclamation -by the United Nations Organization on December 10, 1948, of the universal declaration of human rights. The salient feature of this document merits emphasis and re-emphasis. This brief section reads as follows:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
That is the end of the quotation, Mr. Chairman. The doctrine in itself is not new. It is as old as civilization itself. It has been repeatedly enunciated by the ancient prophets, and took its most significant form in the golden rule. We must recognize, however, painful though it may be, that through the ages mankind has unfortunately deviated considerably from its basic teachings. This disregard for the most elementary human law is largely responsible for the greatest tragedies in history. A return to this basic concept is what the world now seeks. This was very eloquently underscored recently by one of our -contemporary philosophers when he stated:
Science has annihilated time and space. A world that has grown geographically smaller, must in the nature of things grow morally and spiritually larger. Brotherhood once a dream and once a vision has now become a necessity-a dire necessity. Unless we develop mentally and spiritually to the same degree that we have developed mechanically and technologically, we shall have, we will have, created a Frankenstein, that will turn around and crush its very maker. Unless we return to first 68108-300i
Fair Employment Practices
and basic principles in human relations the birth certificate of the atomic age may well become the burial certificate of civilization.
It is obviously, Mr. Chairman, not necessary today to argue in a democratic legislative body the legal grounds for the equality of mankind, and although the present legislation is motivated by this moral theory, it should not by the remotest stretch of imagination be interpreted that our country has been unaware of it.
I am satisfied that this bill aims merely to emphasize this principle for those in our country who, in their dealings with some of their fellow Canadians, permit their sense of fairness to become frozen and somewhat distorted by whim, prejudice, intolerance, unawareness or even quite unintentionally, and therefore are inclined to deviate from this basic human law.
I should like at this point, Mr. Chairman, to cite another very pointed statement on. this subject, and I quote from a recent address by J. L. Mann of Chicago. He said:
If prejudice were to be abolished, discrimination would be non-existent; if prejudice were abolished, we would no longer proclaim the fatherhood of God in our houses of worship and destroy the brotherhood of man everywhere else. If prejudice were abolished, man's inhumanity to man would be eliminated; if prejudice were abolished, fair employment practices legislation would not be necessary.
This quotation reflects most admirably the principal objectives of the present bill, and I am therefore happy indeed to join my colleagues in the chamber who almost unanimously support it.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, proudly carries the same stamp of advanced thinking that has characterized all the other social justice measures adopted by this government during the present and the previous parliaments, and will, like the others, evoke the fullest commendation not only from all sides of this house, from the people of Canada, but also from every democratic person everywhere.
Legislation dealing with fair employment -practices is not new to parliaments and other legislative bodies in our country. As has been pointed out, a number of our provincial legislatures and municipal councils have already adopted such laws, and many others are now dealing with similar legislation. But, Mr. Chairman, since labour problems in a general way look for their solution to their immediate surroundings, they necessarily fall within the jurisdiction sometimes of municipal, sometimes of provincial, and sometimes of federal legislative bodies. '
It is comforting, therefore, to find that, in so far as the federal government can possibly reach into and have a word to say

Fair Employment Practices constitutionally about fairness in labour relations, the Minister of Labour and our government, by this bill, express a desire to eliminate unfair discrimination in labour in all those fields of employment which are listed in the bill and which, by law, fall within the jurisdiction of this parliament. For this, Mr. Chairman, the minister and the government merit the gratitude of every employee in Canada.
There are, however, a number of suggestions which I should like the minister to consider in relation to the scope of the present bill in its application. Some of these suggestions may make the measure more effective, because they propose to penetrate a little bit deeper into the field of industry, and reach beyond the limitations set up in this bill.
However, before I deal with these suggestions permit me, Mr. Chairman, in glancing at the background for the consideration of this bill, briefly to draw attention to what contemporary legislative history on the American continent has recorded on this matter.
It appears that immediately following the close of the war in 1945, fair-minded leaders of public opinion were struck by the inhuman havoc which resulted from sheer intolerance and discrimination. Their thinking was directed toward preventing, in so far as it was humanly possible, a repetition of these conditions.
One of the first steps taken was the adoption by the state of New York of the Ives-Quinn law to which the minister referred when he presented the bill for second reading. This law banned social and religious discrimination in employment. It was fathered by the Hon. Irving M. Ives, then a member of the New York state legislature and now a United States senator, and he took great pride in the fact that this law was the first in human history to make the forthright declaration that the opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination because of race, creed, colour or national origin was recognized as a civil right.
From this springboard, Mr. Chairman, there followed in various states of the union a series of bills that gave expression in similar and in more formidable terms to the just human philosophy encompassed in the piece of legislation presented by Mr. Ives. Whilst I have not at hand the accurate number of state legislatures of the United States which have adopted fair employment laws, I am under the impression that a great number of the states of the union now have such measures on their statute books.

Without wishing to burden the committee, but merely for the purpose of indicating some of the considerations which form the basis for the fair employment laws adopted by many legislative bodies, I desire to quote the preamble of the bill of the state of Ohio. I do so because I consider this preamble to be classical and a model followed by most of the states in the union. In some there may be slight modifications in the wording, but the spirit and intent of the legislation is maintained throughout. This is the preamble to the Ohio statute:
This act shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, prosperity, safety, health and peace of the people of this state and to promote the common good; and the legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, religious creed, colour or national origin are a matter of state concern; that such discrimination threatens the rights and privileges of its inhabitants and menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state by fomenting domestic strife and unrest and by depriving large segments of the population of earnings necessary to maintain decent standards of living, thereby necessitating their resort to public relief and intensifying group conflicts.
The right to obtain employment and the right to work without discrimination because of race, colour, religious creed, national origin or ancestry is hereby declared to be a civil right and privilege of the inhabitants of the state.
To move a little bit closer to home, Mr. Chairman, it is stimulating to know that three years before Senator Ives formulated what he calls the first record in human history to enact such legislation, our own government, in 1942, dealt very effectively with the matter of unfair employment practices on the administrative even though not on the legislative level.
On November 7, 1942, during the war, Mr. Elliott Little, who was then the head of the national selective service, promulgated regulation No. 81. This promulgation should be a source of great pride to all Canadians, and in this spirit I desire to read into Hansard a portion of the directive which Mr. Little then issued to regional superintendents and managers serving under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. Mr. Little stated:
Some employers continue to discriminate against certain classes of persons on grounds of citizenship, race, language, name, creed or colour. Such discrimination impairs the war effort. No official of selective service should do anything to encourage or facilitate any such discrimination. No such official should make any remark or ask any question of any applicant or employer that could be interpreted as condoning or suggesting discrimination in employment.
Local and regional offices will withdraw from use any employment or selective service forms or questionnaires which contain any question or indication of a person's race, creed, colour, and no form with any such question shall be put into use without head office approval.

If it comes to the attention of a national selective service officer that any employer is unreasonably refusing to engage otherwise qualified persons referred to him by the office principally on the grounds which are discriminatory within the meaning of these instructions, the national selective service officer shall notify such employer that, in view of the evidence of discrimination, he is required to refer the matter to head office, at Ottawa, and that the result may be directions to grant no more permits until such time as it is satisfactorily established that such discrimination has stopped.
No advertisement shall be approved under the provisions of part V of the national selective service regulations if it contains any expression such as "Gentiles preferred", "Protestants only" or any other expression which is indicative of an employer's intention to discriminate against any class of person.
It is of course most gratifying to all of us, Mr. Chairman, that our country can genuinely say that it took effective steps before anyone else thought of doing so, notwithstanding the statement by the Hon. Mr. [ves.
Then followed the Saskatchewan bill of rights act, 1947, which based the law on the human considerations disclosed by its section 8, which reads as follows:
Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy ^the right to obtain and retain employment without discrimination with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such person or class of persons.
The province of Ontario was next to step in line when on April 5, 1951, it adopted the fair employment practices act. The brief preamble to this act has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Spadina, but it is so all-inclusive that, at the risk of redundancy, I desire to refer to it once more. It says:
Whereas it is contrary to public policy in Ontario to discriminate against men and women in respect of their employment because of race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin; and whereas it is desirable to enact a measure designed to promote observances of this principle: and whereas to do so is in accord with the universal declaration of human rights as proclaimed by the United Nations, therefore His Majesty-
And so on. Then followed the Winnipeg city council, which only very recently adopted a most effective resolution, not only itself supporting fair employment practices legislation but also urging the province of Manitoba and the federal government likewise to adopt similar laws. The province of Manitoba did only a few days ago, on April 30, adopt such a law and I am hopeful that before this day is over this parliament, too, will adopt the bill now before us. There are a number of other Canadian legislative bodies now projecting similar laws. All this is due to the progress of our times and the universal desire to live in peace, harmony and understanding.
Fair Employment Practices
Notwithstanding this, however, I do not think anyone in this house or out of it could justifiably say that discrimination in employment in Canada does not exist, despite our pious hopes and wishes to the contrary. It does exist. We all know it. To say otherwise is a denial of the truth. Countless examples of discrimination are almost common and public knowledge. Everyone is unanimous that it should be eliminated. The approaches to cure this iniquity are manifold.
We all agree that education is without a doubt the most effective method of dealing with it. On this point I quote a brief extract from an editorial which appeared a short while ago in the Chatham Daily News, entitled, "The Root of Discrimination." Amongst the things the editor said was the following:
Prejudice dwells in the human mind, and the only cure for it is to broaden and enlighten the minds of people. This is not a job for the police, but for the churches, the schools and the newspapers.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the editor could have gone a little further and pointed out that psychologists have determined that no one is bom with prejudices. This is a product of environment and is developed from association with parents, teachers, playmates, newspapers, radio, television, and the like, all of which may serve as instrumentalities of indoctrination.
The editor is no doubt on the right track, but it must also be borne in mind that by the same process of reasoning that no one is born with prejudices, we are told by sociologists that no one is born a thief, a forger, a swindler or murderer; yet there is legislation enacted to attempt to minimize the commission of these offences.
If, therefore, a person with a prejudice confines it to his own personal way of life, and if through his acts others do not suffer, he may stay confined to his thinking and his distorted belief; but the moment his actions interfere with our social structure and tend to deprive others of the liberties, freedoms and rights which this blessed country has given them to enjoy, such a person is guilty of an offence, and should be sanctioned.
Although it is true, Mr. Chairman, that we may not be able to legislate prejudice out of the hearts of people, I am nevertheless convinced that it is possible to legislate the manifestation of that prejudice out of their actions, and thereby minimize the danger of disturbing the peace, order and good government of the community in which they live and work.

Fair Employment Practices
I go along with those who believe that you cannot abolish by legislation the commission of the offences enumerated in the Criminal Code, and that you cannot by law convert a thief into an honest man. But most certainly the Criminal Code intends to protect society against thieves and criminals, and lays down regulations in an attempt to provide the maximum protection possible by the threat of punishment to those who commit the offences.
Consequently it is clear to me, in any event, that the present bill does not intend to legislate against a person's right to his opinions, ideas or even prejudices, but rather to protect society from suffering as a result of his overt acts of discrimination, and from an invasion of its rights and privileges.
I agree with the editor and all those who say that education is perhaps the greatest instrument society has for the elimination of prejudice. But it is also a well-known principle that legislation, accompanied by salutary sanctions, is one of the best educational vehicles in such matters.
I was distressed to read in the press a few days ago that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has expressed a doubt as to the workability of the proposed legislation. Although the chamber declared its adherence to the principles enunciated in the bill, it seemed to lay emphasis on the fact that education and moral persuasion would prove more effective than legislation, and therefore doubted the need for an act of parliament as an exercise of pressure, which is foreign to the solution of any real problem arising out of discriminatory practices. This is an astounding process of reasoning. No. value whatsoever is placed by the chamber on legislation as one of the processes of education.
I would like to draw to the attention of the gentlemen responsible for the letter which they addressed to the chairman of the parliamentary committee on industrial relations about this matter, a most instructive article which appeared in a publication entitled, "Food for Thought", published by the Canadian association for adult education, and reported in its edition of October, 1949. This is written by Dr. Manfred Saalheimer, and says:
Nobody will deny the importance of education as an ally of legislation. It is certainly not a case of "either-or". It is the case of education plus legislation. Both are valid approaches, complementary to each other. It is also a case of education through legislation. Public discussions on appropriate government control by which evil practices can be ended, parliamentary debate, and finally administrative and judicial enforcement practices will all in themselves be effective educational processes.

And again:
Even the ten commandments had to be reinforced by legal sanctions. If someone objects that killing of human beings continues, despite the sixth commandment and the legal penalties attached to its breach, the answer is that life is certainly better protected with these criminal sanctions than without.
Ninety per cent of our population are fair and law-abiding citizens who are guided by the standards which society has recognized. Thus, if the law indicates that public policy is opposed to hiring procedures based on race, religion, colour or national origin, the bulk of the people will not only conform but will recognize the fair practices as the only right ones. Reference may be in order to the days when bills were introduced in England against child labour. By their public discussion long before their actual passage, an educational process was begun which was continued by their final enactment and by their very enforcement- until the new pattern of conduct was firmly accepted.
I am therefore satisfied that the committee and the house will agree with me that legislation not only proposes education, but supports it; it implements it, it crowns the process of education. That is without a doubt the primary objective of this measure, and that is why it has such wide and almost universal acceptance. The chamber of commerce also expressed some apprehension as to whether legislation of this type can effectively be applied in the general field of industry. On this point I respectfully submit that there could be no doubt about the constitutional position of the bill, because it is based on those matters which fall within the legislative authority of this parliament, and on contractual rights and obligations purely and simply. In the latter case there is created a bilateral agreement by which the government as one party declares that it is prepared to enter into a contract with the second party under definite terms and conditions, some of which are set forth in the legislation before the house. I emphasize that it is purely a voluntary arrangement.
To bulwark the position taken by the government we need but realize that payment for the work performed by those who contract with the government is made out of the consolidated revenues of Canada. These revenues come from moneys received from all people in Canada, irrespective of race, religion, colour or nationality. In other words, every resident of Canada who pays federal taxes of any kind is almost personally a contracting party with those engaged by the government and who are paid out of its consolidated revenues. How illogical it would therefore be for a contractor to take the position that he is willing to accept money irrespective of its race, colour or creed, so to speak, and yet refuse to employ those

very people who in a measure help to provide this money for his remuneration.
A system which supports this view is the one adopted by the United States early this year. A new administrative procedure was designed to effectively implement federal regulations banning discrimination in hiring by private firms working on government contracts. This administrative procedure was included in the general services administration, which is the federal government buying agency, and was announced by Mr. Jesse Larson, head of the agency. Mr. Larson said that his office would be able under the new procedure to persuade a contractor to either meet the requirements of the regulations banning discrimination, or to cancel his contract: This new recommendation was suggested in a report of the president's committee on government contract compliance which was presented to President Truman immediately before his term expired. The adoption of our bill will make it possible for the Canadian government to follow a similar procedure in our country, and it is my conviction that it should be done.
I said earlier in my remarks that there are a number of suggestions that I would like the minister to consider. It is my humble belief that the bill could go further in its application. I would like to see much more direct provision to indicate that the effect of this act will make it possible to penetrate industry in whatever form it takes as a result of the contractual arrangements with the government. There are thousands of employees working on government general construction, public buildings and public works; many more thousands working on defence projects, the manufacture of uniforms, equipment, supplies, etc., all of which are produced under contract between the government and independent industrial and commercial bodies.
In studying this measure now section by section I hope hon. members will consider the importance of making the act apply to all employees who handle the whole or any portion of these operations, payment for which is made out of the consolidated revenues of Canada. This act should extend to every phase of employment over which the government has control either directly or indirectly.
On this point I draw attention to the fact that no mention is made in the bill about the responsibilities of a subcontractor. I urge that categoric provision should be made that the obligations undertaken by the contractor should apply also in every detail to all and
Fair Employment Practices any of his subcontractors. This will prevent an escape by the contractor who may plead that a breach was committed by a subcontractor and not by himself. In having the bill extend to subcontractors, an additional safeguard is provided against the abuses which the law seeks to prevent.
In the same spirit, I would like to see the bill extend not only to independent contractors or subcontractors in the general sense but to anyone who is under contract with the government for any purpose whatsoever, and one of the tests to determine this contractual position should be whether or not moneys are used which come from the consolidated revenues of Canada. This would also bring into focus any loan corporation, insurance company, or other financial institution which makes loans out of moneys supplied in whole or in part by the government of Canada, when such moneys are to be used for building or other projects undertaken upon the recommendation or with the approval of the government of Canada, irrespective of whether such moneys are provided by the government in the form of loans, grants, subsidies or guarantees.
The Minister of Labour in his remarks drew to the attention of the house the fact that at the commencement of this year directions were issued by order in council that all contracts with the government must include a non-discriminatory clause with respect to labour used by the contractor concerned. This is indeed an effective beginning to implement the spirit of non-discriminatory legislation, and the present bill will continue to blaze the trail in this field of social justice by giving it the necessary force of legislative authority.
I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to say a word about another type of discrimination in labour. The hon. member for Hamilton West has presented Bill No. 188 dealing with the question of providing equal pay for equal work for women. The underlying intent of Bill No. 188 is the desire to deal with this additional form of discrimination-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think we should restrict
ourselves to Bill No. 100.


Leon David Crestohl: I am suggesting that the inclusion of the principles of Bill No. 188 in Bill No. 100 would help to eliminate an additional bill before the house and yet supply a measure of relief in connection with this particular complaint of discrimination. If, however, you rule that reference to Bill 188 at this time is out of order, I bow to your decision. But I do feel that it is a ground of discrimination and perhaps with one fell swoop, so to speak, we might be

Natural Resources
able to solve the problem raised by Bill No. 188.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say in conclusion that it is my respectful submission that the bill before us should receive universal acclaim. It is consistent with the lofty regard our country enjoys, particularly because of the way in which we have dealt with social justice problems in Canada in the past. It is my conviction, too, that this country has in many respects been in the vanguard of contemporary civilization in the field of social justice legislation; and we have met, and are meeting, all the challenges which humanity could require of any country in this field.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 13.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 13 was one of the two clauses which some of us did not think exactly necessary but certainly we have no objection to it. I believe it provides that the act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1953. We are glad to give the department that much time to get ready to put the act into operation and we think that it is a matter of sufficient significance to call attention to the fact that this important piece of legislation will come into effect on Canada's birthday, July 1.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.



NATURAL RESOURCES-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to avail myself of this opportunity to deal with a subject that has been discussed at different times in the house on earlier occasions, and for that very reason it is not necessary to enlarge upon the details. Nevertheless there are certain points with regard to the subject which I should like to bring again to the attention of members of the house, and to seek from the house a statement as to the policy which is to be adopted by the parliament of Canada and by the government from time to time which represents it.


Mr. Croll:: What is the subject?
[Mr. Crestohl.l


George Alexander Drew: We have talked so frequently about our resources that we have come to discuss them without recognizing how revolutionary events of the past few years have been. We always knew we had immense resources. We knew that in some cases we had more than any other country in the world. Now we find ourselves suddenly confronted with the fact that here in Canada are known to exist the most important resources upon which the industrial strength of any nation can be built.
We knew that we had the greatest commercial forests in the world, we knew that we produced most of the world's nickel, we knew that we produced more than half of the world's asbestos, we knew that with imported bauxite we were one of the -greatest producers of aluminum, we knew that we had an immense reserve of coal, we knew we had iron, we knew we had oil and natural gas, but it is only within these last few years that we have suddenly come to realize that we have the greatest known resources of iron ore in the world today, that we have the greatest known reserves of coal, that we have the greatest reserves of oil if we include the tar sands of Alberta with our known resources, and -that above all we have in this modern atomic age that remarkable mineral, uranium.
We might have iron and other raw materials and still not be one of the greatest industrial producers. That depends upon power and human skill. We have the human skill. We demonstrated that during the great war by the things of the finest type that we have produced in this country. Also these are the things which are needed for industrial production-coal, water power, oil, natural gas, and now uranium. We have all five. Without too much knowledge of what Russia may possess today, we know that of the countries which disclose their possessions we are the only important country that has all five of the sources of power upon which industrial production is built.
We have a fantastic inventory of minerals. We are therefore confronted with a decision, and an urgent decision, as to what our policies will be. Canada was confronted with a similar decision some 40 years ago when the exhaustion of the forest resources of the United States imposed demands upon our forest resources which might easily have dissipated them in the same way. A decision of vital importance was made at that time. It was decided that Canada was going to use its forest resources for the legitimate selfinterests of Canada. As a result of that decision the value of our forest products has

multiplied more than ten times since 1910, and today the greatest dollar earner in Canada for the people and workers of Canada is the forest industry of our country.
Today we are confronted with the necessity for a similar decision in relation to our mineral and other irreplaceable resources. Upon that decision will depend the kind of country Canada will be in the years ahead. I submit that there is no more important decision facing the people of Canada, represented here in parliament, than a decision as to the policy that is to be adopted in this respect. If in application to these resources which are more difficult to conserve, and which cannot be replaced in the way that forest resources can, we adopt a policy similar to that adopted 40 years ago with respect to our forest resources, we will not merely increase our wealth but we shall emerge within a comparatively few years as one of the great powers of the world. Within 25 years we may have a population of 30 million, within 50 years a population of from 60 to 100 million. The size of Canada, the future of Canada, depend upon the decision that we make. We are still awaiting a declaration of policy in these critical days.
We must remember that the provincial governments have the primary authority; nevertheless this is a field for close cooperation. Today the government of Canada is called upon time and time again to enter into contracts related to the use of resources, to take various steps related to this use, and what is done will depend upon the policy that is adopted. If we make the right decision today this will be the dawn of the development of a new world power, Canada, such as we have scarcely dreamed of up to this time.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the amendment I have in mind. It will only take a minute, and if I have the indulgence of the house I shall do so and conclude my remarks because I have already put my views with respect to the subject on record in much more detail on earlier occasions. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
whereas the natural resources of Canada are a heritage that should be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians, this house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
Natural Resources
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada;
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion;
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Do you wish me to read the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready to vote on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, exactly the same amendment, word for word, was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on June 16, 1952, and it can be found in Hansard of that date at page 3263. I intend to move exactly the same subamendment as my leader moved on the same day, and it can be found in Hansard at page 3267.
I am going to be very brief in speaking to this amendment to the amendment, but I speak for a few minutes because the C.C.F. is fundamentally and primarily interested in the conservation of human and natural resources. It is the basis of our national policy and of our approach to political, economic and social conditions. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by speeches made in this house throughout the years, by members representing this group, and in successive national and provincial conventions of the C.C.F. All those conventions took considerable time in discussing the very problem we have before us this evening.
Last session, and again this session, I moved the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
I did that on behalf of this group because we believed that this problem must be kept before the house, and was one in which a large number of people in this country were concerned. We find from correspondence we have, as do other members of the house, from organizations all across this country and from
475S

Natural Resources
individuals, that the problem is receiving increasing recognition. When the resolution on this subject was being discussed this session, its importance was recognized by the interesting debate we had, in which members of all parties took part.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when we come to deal with natural resources as a whole we are covering a very wide field. We are covering our water resources, our power resources, our forest resources, our mineral resources, and our soil resources, and the question of erosion as it affects our streams, lakes and river shore lines in this country. We agree largely with the resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition, but we do not agree with two or three words which indicate that he wants to restrict the development of our natural resources entirely to free enterprise.
I understand that because it is strictly in accord with the Progressive Conservative party's economic theories. In doing so, however, I think they show a certain amount of inconsistency, because we have the large publicly-owned hydro development in Ontario, and the public power developments in Saskatchewan and British Columbia as well as in the other provinces. Why do we have these? Because free enterprise, in which the hon. gentleman believes, refuses to accept its responsibilities in that respect. The people could not receive from free enterprise the service they are receiving today from the publicly-owned development of the natural resources for power purposes.
Even this government has recognized that it is necessary for the government to undertake the protection of our natural resources. It is for that reason the government undertakes conservation measures through P.F.R.A. It has done excellent work. Why have they undertaken that work in the prairie provinces, to some extent in British Columbia and in the marshlands of the maritime provinces? This government has undertaken that work because it recognizes that free enterprise will not accept any responsibility, and recognizes too that the work can only be undertaken satisfactorily under government direction and government auspices.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is some inconsistency in the point of view of the Leader of the Opposition because in recent days we have had a very lengthy debate on the Saskatchewan dam. Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that free enterprise build the Saskatchewan dam and conserve the natural resources of Saskatchewan in that respect? No; he and his colleagues wholeheartedly support the public development of the Saskatchewan dam to protect and conserve the natural resources of that province.

In addition to that, the public development of natural resources is receiving ever wider recognition. Look at the federal government's policy in respect to the conservation of forest resources, limited as it is. Who accepts the responsibility for co-operating with the provinces in the development of better fire protection, the development of insect control and fungus disease control? Who conducts the investigation? Who gets the evidence? Who takes action? The federal and provincial governments do that co-operatively. Why? Because free enterprise will not accept its responsibility toward the preservation of our natural forest resources.
Then we come to the question of erosion. Who protects our shores? Who is asked to develop an erosion policy for Ontario lakes and the lakes in British Columbia? The federal and provincial governments recognize that free enterprise will not accept any responsibility with respect to that.
I intend to be brief, because we do not want to hold up the house at this time. We in this group believe wholeheartedly in a national policy of development in co-operation with the provinces for the conservation of all our natural resources. We believe it is very necessary that such a policy should be inaugurated as soon as possible. We propose that the best way to develop and preserve and protect our natural resources is by a combination of public co-operative and private ownership. As is evidenced from our wasting soil in the maritimes, our wasting timber in Ontario, our abandoned farms in Ontario and even British Columbia, the loss in fertility of the soils in recent years, we believe that free enterprise, in a wide section of the development and protection of our natural resources, has completely failed during the years to recognize its responsibility, and in some instances is not as capable of undertaking that protection and development as a government, federal or provincial.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving a subamendment, seconded by the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "under a system of free enterprise and"
The resolution would then read as follows:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Whereas the natural resources of Canada are a heritage that should be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians, this house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada;

(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and
other resources from	undue depletion or
exhaustion;
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians".


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think no one in the house had expected that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) would move this amendment this afternoon, at this late date. For the life of me I cannot quite understand why he moved it at this time unless, of course, he sincerely feels that this is a topic of such great importance that it must be debated in the house every few weeks or months. As my friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has said, it is not long since the Leader of the Opposition moved exactly the same resolution; and at that time I think it was debated at length in the house. Whether we like it or not just at the moment, the resolution has been moved and I suppose it is up to us to state our position on it. I therefore propose to do that in just a few minutes tonight.
Let me make it plain, Mr. Speaker, that I am all for having topics of such great importance as this one given every possible consideration by the members of this house. If there is one subject that is of more importance than another to the people of Canada, I think it is that of the proper development, conservation and use of our natural resources. In anything I say tonight I must not indicate that I feel that is not an extremely important consideration for every Canadian.
One could speak at great length on the terms of the resolution. Every single one of them is full of meat and involves such important considerations that, in the period of 40 minutes which is alloted to each of us, it would be impossible to begin to deal with the things that should be dealt with. However, Mr. Speaker, I should like just to say a few words in a general fashion to indicate how we feel about the resolution and also, in the course of what I have to say, to indicate how we feel about the C.C.F. subamendment.
The subamendment just moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West would delete from the amendment the words "under a system of free enterprise and". Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of the term "free enterprise"; not at all. Of course, when we are speaking of free enterprise I think we ought to be prepared to define our terms. I think we should be prepared to state specifically what we think free enterprise means; and I believe I am prepared to do that.
Natural Resources
So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we believe that in our economy proper recognition should be given to private enterprise. We believe that private enterprise ought to be preserved most carefully. I think one of the outstanding contributions which our province has made to the strength of Canada as a whole has been its demonstration that private enterprise, relieved of some of the burdens that are generally placed upon it and shorn of some of the abuses which sometimes attend it, can serve humanity well and can work successfully to produce goods and services in abundance. Private enterprise can yield enough and to spare for all human beings. I am satisfied of that fact. Believing that, we feel that every opportunity should be given for the fullest measure of the exercise of private enterprise in the development of our resources.
But there is this important point that we must keep in our minds. In my province we have had quite a good deal of experience now with the development of resources and the laying down of policies for doing so. Using an interesting combination of private-enterprise activity and wise and efficient government policy, I think the province of Alberta has not only shown the rest of Canada that the natural resources of a country can be developed in an orderly fashion, but has gone beyond that and also demonstrated that this combination of wise government policy -and private-enterprise activity can develop resources in such a way as to make them yield to the people substantial revenues which can be used to replace taxation or to supplement it in providing the people with services.
I recall with considerable and, I believe, pardonable satisfaction how during the early years of my first experience in government we laid down policies which we felt convinced would induce an orderly development of our resources in the province for the good of all our people. We kept in mind at that time the need for preserving the private-enterprise principle because, under that principle, we were certain that human beings would make their best efforts and produce the best results. We introduced a system of leases, rentals and royalties covering all of our resources. We provided inducement, wherever possible, for exploration and development; and as a consequence of the assurance that they would be given a good run for their money, individuals and groups of individuals brought capital into the province and invested it as risk capital to develop the resources.
Those people who brought their money in and invested it were given a run for their

Natural Resources
money, and in not one single instance did we break faith with them. As a consequence we obtained orderly development, and development in the best interests of the people; and it will stand comparison or contrast with the development that can be demonstrated in any other province in Canada. Having said that, I hope I have made clear just where we stand with respect to this matter of private enterprise. We want to preserve that principle and at the same time we want to see that our resources are developed.
The resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition goes beyond that and sets out three specific clauses to indicate the kind of natural resources development and protection the Conservative party would stand for. The first clause reads in this way:
-in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a) promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada:
In his extremely short speech the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon indicated that he understood that the natural resources belonged to the provinces and that the development of those resources would have to be primarily the responsibility of the provincial governments. But he did say the federal government ought to work in very close collaboration with the provinces and lay down a national policy of co-operation and assistance to see that the resources were developed for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada.
I notice that in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) there is an indication of something the Leader of the Opposition said a while ago in the course of another debate. He seems to indicate throughout the whole of his amendment his desire to see a Canada first policy introduced into this country. I may' say that during the course of the pipe-line debate in the house not long ago I heard him say that he believed in a Canada first policy. I also heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) declare that the Liberal party is a Canada first party.
Well, I should like to tell both these recent converts to Canada first that we Social Credi-ters have been putting forward a real Canada first policy in and out of parliament for the last 15 years. Away back in 1938 the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) moved in the house a resolution in specific terms that put forward a realistic situation and a real Canada first policy that called not only for the development of our resources in the interests of all Canada, but also stating in effect, though perhaps not in these exact words, that whatever policy we do lay down, 
for the development of our resources and the realization of a strong and virile and happy Canada, we must reconcile our national aspirations with economic truth. And he has been saying that-and so have we all-ever since that time.
I have not yet heard the Leader of the Opposition set out in specific terms the kind of national policy for the development of our resources that he seems to feel the government ought to be adopting. I should like to hear the government or the official opposition put forward their views, and I should like to examine them in detail. If we do examine them in detail I guarantee we will not find one single instance in which recognition is given to the necessity for reconciling our national aspirations with economic truth. I would like to see that done, and when it is done I am going to be the first person in the house to congratulate those who put it forward.
There is no sense sitting back and talking about the development of our resources in an orderly fashion for the people of Canada, and at the same time refusing to lay down financial and economic policies that will make it possible for our people to enjoy the fruits of their labours. I think it is about time we began to tie these things together, and to look at them in a realistic fashion.
Time and again we have put forward our proposals in which we do very closely tie in the financial policies with the economic policies for the development of resources. I think that is a realistic Canada first policy.
I should like to bring up for one moment a case in point. Not long ago we discussed here the question of building a pipe line for the transportation of gas across Canada to serve the markets in the east. That was very definitely one of the facets of a national policy. But in the course of the discussion of that pipe-line bill, and the discussion of getting Alberta's gas, which is of tremendous importance to this country, into the markets of eastern Canada, I heard some rather remarkable observations. For instance, I heard the Leader of the Opposition make the statement that he believed the pipe line should follow an all-Canadian route. I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce stand in his place and declare that it must follow an allCanadian route. I heard him propose this idea, that no licence would be granted for the carrying of gas through a pipe line from the western provinces to eastern Canada by way of United States territory, and that any pipe line carrying that gas must come by an all-Canadian route.
I am not discussing pipe lines, but I am just using this to illustrate what I wish to say. By stating that the pipe line must

follow an all-Canadian route I say that both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Leader of the Opposition were failing to recognize economic truth. I am not going to say that such a pipe line would not be feasible. Let me hasten to assure the proponents of an all-Canadian pipe line that I hope when all the facts and figures are brought to light an all-Canadian pipe line will be able to justify itself, in the light of economic facts. I do hope so, because I would like to see it all-Canadian for numerous reasons.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to throw this thing into confusion by declaring that it must be so, before I see all the facts. And let me say that no one who has spoken in the house on such a subject has had the facts in front of him to justify an allCanadian route. I would like the Leader of the Opposition

I invite him to do so-to supply me with facts upon which he would base the statement that an all-Canadian pipe line to carry Alberta gas from the west to the eastern markets is feasible, and not only is feasible but will carry the gas to the east and lay it down in the eastern markets at a price which will yield a reasonable return to the people producing the gas at well-head. The well-head price is important.
I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to produce for me the figures and facts, and until he does so I must conclude that he cannot. Further than that I am going to say it is dangerous and foolish for any of us to rise in the House of Commons and take a firm position in a matter of that kind before we know the facts. All I want is the facts. When I get them I will be able to make up my mind which is going to be the most feasible and economic route, and one which will yield a reasonable return to our country. I am concerned about all sections of our country. I am concerned about producers; I am concerned about consumers. In the development of all our resources I would like to see a policy adopted that would ensure both reasonable protection, and a reasonable promise of return for what they do and what they buy.
This Canada first policy applies not only to gas but to the development of all our resources. In adopting a Canada first policy I think it ought to be definitely understood that if the kind of Canada first policy proposed by the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives is going to cost any particular section of the Canadian people any amount of money, either the producers or the consumers, then I say the government ought to be prepared to make that up by means of
Natural Resources
subsidies. That is the position we take. That is realistic.
To come back to the illustration of the pipe line, which can serve as an illustration for all of our national policies in the field of resources and development, if the selection of an all-Canada route for the transportation of gas eastward is going to cost the producers more money, if it is going to depress their price in the west, then the government that adopts that policy ought to be prepared to step in and subsidize those producers so they will not lose money.
So it should be with the consumers. If by following an all-Canada route to get gas east into the market the price is pushed up, whereas if you had followed some other route you could keep the consumer price down, then I say it is up to the government that introduces such a policy to see to it that the consumers are subsidized so that they do not have to pay for the sentiment that the government would weave into a policy.
We believe in Canada first; we believe that sentiment should play its part. But we submit that that part ought to be cut to the bare minimum. We should look at facts and see to it that our policies reflect the facts and are in consonance always with economic truth. That is the policy we follow. We would like to see a national policy laid down. I do not believe there has been any such policy; in the field of fuel there certainly has not been.
We have been following a hit-and-miss, patchwork policy all during the years. I am not blaming just this government, as it seems to have become a habit. I think it is about time this government sat down with the governments of the provinces and worked out a national policy that will cut sentiment to its bare minimum but keep sentiment there, sentiment in favour of Canada. I am satisfied that they would have no trouble whatever in getting support.
I think that is about all I want to say at this time, but I do want to indicate that we are indeed Canada firsters who would attempt to reconcile national aspirations with the truths of economics.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should explain to the house how these idealistic "Sacred" policies are now working out in the province of British Columbia, where they have managed to close a great number of saw mills and many mines. I have not seen any indication yet of the government of British Columbia coming along with any bonus or compensation for the people who have been put out of business as the result of those "Socred" policies.

Natural Resources


Robert Fair: Better look to their predecessors and find out what they did to put them out of business.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is one of the most important to have been introduced in this house, as it deals with one of the most important matters we could possibly deal with at the moment; but it has received treatment at the hands of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties which needs some explanation.
From what the C.C.F. have said there seems to be a misunderstanding as to the meanings of conservation and development. They are two entirely different things. The fact that it was a Conservative, Sir Adam Beck, who developed the policy of municipal ownership, development and distribution of hydroelectric power is quite different from saying that it should be a government's job to go and look for mineral deposits or for oil wells. The distribution and development of hydroelectric power is one thing. It is the conservation of the flow of a river, a national asset, and the development of that asset for the greatest good of the greatest number. That has been the policy of Ontario governments, I think, since 1911. It has been found to be economically sound and it has now been adopted by and large by nearly all the other provinces of Canada. That is one thing.
You have rivers such as the Niagara and the St. Lawrence, great national assets belonging to the Canadian people. Nobody found them, or I suppose it can be said that originally the Indians found Niagara and the St. Lawrence. Nobody discovered water power, or at least it was generally discovered that water and gravity would produce electricity. Electricity is a great national asset and its distribution for the greatest good has been a fixed policy in the country for the last 40 years. But it has fallen down in some places. There have been places where the policy has failed, and there are signs that it is not living up to its promise in some localities.
But the development and distribution of electricity is an entirely different thing from the search for and development of an ore body. I happen to be a small shareholder in an oil company. This company has drilled 18 dry wells. What sort of explanation would I as a member of the government give to this house if I had to say that we had drilled 18 dry wells, had spent so many million dollars, and had nothing to show for it? What would the position be? Is it the function of government to engage in the speculative

development of natural resources? That is obviously not the case.
Only one out of 156 mining developments ever comes into profitable production. It used to be one out of 100, but now it is one out of 156. If I were spending the public money could I come before this house and say, "Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that only one out of every 156 times I have spent the people's money has paid off". What sort of reception would I get? What sort of reception would any government in this country get if they went into that sort of business.
Let us lay this nonsense about governments going into mining once and for all. Take the case of uranium. Uranium was developed and became known as a metal vitally needed for the atomic bomb. It was nationalized by edict of the government, at a time of war; and the Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited-it was a gold mining company at one time-was taken over by the government because it had this essential resource necessary for the development of the atomic bomb. At that time the atomic bomb was thought to be the one weapon with which we could bring about peace.
What has happened? The government took over all prospecting. The government took over and completely clamped down on anybody looking for uranium. The government created a monopoly in uranium. But Mr. Speaker, that monopoly failed; and if it had not been for private enterprise, the small prospector, developing such areas as Beaver-lodge and all the other areas, uranium development in Canada would have stopped where it was in 1945 and 1946 and we would not have any more uranium. Instead of being about the first uranium producing country in the world, we would have been simply a third-rate power in the production of uranium. It has been private enterprise, private money, risk capital that has developed uranium. Without that risk capital uranium production today would have been confined to one or two deposits which were known before.
Who are the people who today go out with the geiger counters? Who are the people who go out today looking for this radioactive material? They are the individual prospectors, the small companies if you like, the large companies if you like, but private enterprise. The government has failed, as any government would fail and must fail, to develop a great natural resource like uranium.
I now come to the question of pipe lines. I would not have mentioned pipe lines had it not been brought up by the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low). Natural gas is like electricity. It is a natural asset of

this country. It can be compared with electricity as a fuel of development. There are two problems to be solved. The first problem is simply this. There is a tremendous surplus of natural gas in Alberta at the present time, and a market for that gas must be found as soon as we can possibly find it. That is problem number one. Problem number two is this. If we ship that natural gas to the immediate market in the United States, can we work out a quid pro quo with the United States so that the gas-hungry east of Canada will receive cubic foot for cubic foot?
Mr. Speaker, in all history no arrangement with the United States has ever been worked out on that basis, and with the intractable attitude of the United States government and the United States congress it is extremely unlikely that any government of Canada could possibly work out an agreement such as that with the United States. In view of our complete inability to work out a treaty like the general agreement on tariffs and trade, under which they will not even accept our dairy produce and in view of the fact that they are now introducing tariffs against lead and zinc-there are already 43 bills excluding Canadian produce at some stage or other in the United States congress at the present time-what sort of chance would we have to work out a quid pro quo in natural gas with people who take that view of international agreements, Mr. Speaker? We would be fooling ourselves.
Here we have a great section of northern Canada, the northern part of Ontario, rich in minerals, rich in nickel, rich in copper, rich in all the precious and base metals which the country and the world must have, but deficient in fuel. Are we going to ship our fuel to another country and allow that north country to remain a barren waste, with the ore under the ground and never developed? Or are we going to try in every way we can to develop that country through our Canadian fuel which we have in such abundance? Surely it is worth while, even though it costs us in Toronto a little more for our natural gas to see that north country developed. There are nickel deposits at Emo; there are the new developments at Sudbury which are worth having developed by our own natural gas.
That is what I mean by a Canada first policy. Let us look after our own developments. Let us bridge the boundaries that run north and south. Let us look at the boundaries that are put there by geology. Let us forget for a time the political boundaries and develop this country on the geological boundaries. If we do that we shall not only be creating new wealth, but we shall be populating that barren territory which is the bugbear
Natural Resources
of all our transportation problems. We shall be putting people and mines and developments in there; we shall be building other Sudburys, several of them, in that great northern territory which today lies barren and must lie barren unless fuel is brought to it. That is what we mean by a Canada first policy. Let us see that that country is properly developed.
I want to make a protest against this government and this house. For 25 years the committee on mines, forests and waters has been set up, and never once has it met. Never once has this parliament of Canada, certainly in my time, considered it worth while to go into the development of our natural resources. We set up the committee. It was a sinecure. We allowed the dust bowls to develop in the Palliser triangle; we allowed our rivers to erode; we allowed our mines to be high-graded; we allowed our natural resources to go to waste. Never once did this parliament take the trouble to look into the development and the conservation of our natural resources. We are a people, Mr. Speaker, whose parliament is so negligent in its basic duty to preserve the very life, the soil, the water, the minerals which make us what we are as Canadians. These could make this the happiest, the most prized land in all the world, yet here in this parliament we do nothing about it. Do we deserve to be the happy land we are? And how much time have we before we find ourselves a have-not country, before we have the situation indicated by the devastating evidence brought down in the Paley report in the United States.
There is my criticism, Mr. Speaker, of what we have done. Our sins have been sins of omission. We have thought we were living in a perpetual boom, a perpetual holiday, and what has happened? The truth is only now coming home to roost; and it is not coming as roosters, it is coming with the carrion claws of socialism; it is coming on the vulture wings of get-rich political schemes. That is what is happening.
Unless something is done about this, Mr. Speaker, we will find ourselves a have-not country. Time is short. We are losing our raw materials, which are being developed by other people. We are losing our top soil because we have not the wit to see that the development is such that the very life of this country is being blown away and we are doing virtually nothing about it. If during my presence in this house I did nothing more than make this protest against our policy, I would still feel myself justified. The time is short, Mr. Speaker. The laughter of two members of my own party who know little and care even less show that this danger is not understood.

Natural Resources


An hon. Member:: That's telling them.	Mr. Hansell: Don't forget the collection.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Lake Centre looks
worried.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is not Lake Centre.


Robert Henry Winters: Not only Lake Centre.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The matter of the development of our natural resources is not something about which we can laugh and jest. One day instead of this being a boom land, Canada will become a have-not country.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, as I seconded this subamendment I feel that it is my duty to say a few words on it, though I know that at this stage of the session everyone is interested in getting the debates over as quickly as possible.
This debate, of course, could be termed the big debate. It actually started in June of last year. This motion was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in exactly the same words, and we proposed an amendment in exactly the same words. Pretty much the same speeches were made, but that will not apply to the one I am going to make now.
The leader of the Social Credit party this evening would lead one to believe that he was opposed to both the amendment and the motion; but I would like to remind him, in ease he has forgotten and wants to be consistent, that members of his party voted for the amendment which we proposed last June. This debate came on rather quickly, and they may not have had a chance to look at the record.


Mr. Blackmore:: We do not need to look to know the record.


Clarence Gillis: I really enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). He was the complete demonstration of the story about the lawyer who says, "When your case is weak, holler as loud as you can". He made a very loud speech tonight, so I said to myself that the hon. member for York West was on shaky ground and was trying to accomplish his purpose by making a loud noise and letting us believe that he had a lot of ammunition. But his speech was very good.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Thank you very much.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to try to stay as close to the point as possible and in order to do so I will follow the practice of the average clergyman. He must preach a sermon on a particular subject on Sunday, so he takes a look at the Good Book and finds a quotation. He takes that quotation as his premise, and builds his case around it. That is what I am going to do now.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) can look after that. The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition suggests that he is very much concerned about the development of Canada's resources for Canadians. That is a very good principle to advocate at any time but in his motion he is not giving all Canadians an opportunity to participate in the development of those resources. He limits his motion to the development of our resources by free enterprise.
What is free enterprise? Well, generally in this country it is a group of people who have enough money go out to develop resources which they think will be most profitable to them.


An hon. Member:: They hire a man with a pick and shovel.


Clarence Gillis: Well, the fellow with the pick and shovel will do the producing, but the point I am making is that the Leader of the Opposition is restricting the development to some privileged group in the country. The subamendment which we propose merely strikes out the two words "free enterprise", and we accept the rest of the motion. That enables free enterprise to do what they desire or what they can. Our policy is that any group of citizens, regardless of the amount of money they control, should be permitted to do something if they can. On the other hand, if it is not possible to get things done by risk capital or by small groups of individuals we say that it is the responsibility of the government to step in where necessary and develop our basic resources.
In the first analysis the government holds the resources of the country in trust for the people-for all of the people, not just a small group that has some money. I am going to take a quotation from page 3036 of Hansard for 1932. As I said, the clergyman seeks higher authority, quotes that authority and builds his case around it. In this case I am going to quote the late Lord Bennett who was speaking on the very point I am now making, the responsibility of the government as custodian of the natural resources of the country.
He said:
I believe that there is no government in Canada that does not regret today that it has parted with some of these natural resources for considerations wholly inadequate and on terms that do not reflect the principle under which the crown holds the natural resources in trust for all the people.
That is a long way from the motion now proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. You know, the private corporations and com-, panies that have now become popularly known under the term "free enterprise" have

had that chance for many years. At eight o'clock this evening, before coming downstairs, I was listening to the radio. I heard a group of newspapermen and one lady from our press gallery interviewing the premier of Newfoundland, the Hon. Joseph Smallwood. This island operated under that system of free enterprise for a good many years, and at least twice during my lifetime has gone into bankruptcy. A commission of government from Great Britain had to take over the administration of its affairs. Newfoundland is now part of Canada, but all during the time its development was unrestricted by government there was not very much development.
I only heard a little of what Mr. Smallwood had to say, but he pointed out that his government did undertake the responsibility and developed three small industries, which they operated for a time. Later on they sold them, but they drove in the wedge to get industry in that part of the country. It was the initiative, drive and courage of the Newfoundland government that actually got something done. Nothing had been done under the system of free enterprise. Whether or not we agree with what the gentleman did, in my estimation he has done more for that part of the country since he formed the government than was done by all the free enterprisers without government interference.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Are they all paying?


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue that point. If you asked me whether or not Canada Packers were paying I would not be able to tell you because they always keep two sets of books, one for public consumption and one for the back office. I am not, therefore, going to start analysing the finances of the government of Newfoundland. However, that is just an example. I am not speaking personally when I say that, because we believe in getting things done for the Canadian people, regardless of who is doing it. If something is being done, we are quite prepared to give credit where credit is due.
As I said a moment ago this slogan that Canada should develop Canadian resources for Canadians is particularly good at election time. However, one should stop for a moment and think of the resources that are left. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, our iron ore resources have been farmed out for at least the next ten years. Our oil resources are being piped over to the United States. In this house we moved a motion that the main pipe lines at least should be made common carriers, and that the government should control the main lines and allow
Natural Resources
development to the east, west, north and south from those main lines.
I recall that the leader of the Social Credit party mentioned our fuel development, and that reminded me of another badly managed industry, the coal industry. This industry has been in the hands of private enterprise for a good many years, and today the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia are smokeless smoke stacks, monuments to the faulty development of that industry. Our coal industry is folding up under the system of private enterprise. We only produce 17 million tons of coal per year in this country, yet we import around 27 million tons. I am convinced that if this industry is to get proper development to the point where it will at least remove Canada's dependence upon the United States for coal, the government is going to have to step in rather than leave it for further exploitation. This was clearly demonstrated during the last war.
However, that is a long story. This industry has been badly managed, and it has been in private hands for a good many years.
I believe that, in the light of these facts, the Leader of the Opposition should agree to eliminate those words "free enterprise". As I pointed out a moment ago these words restrict the development of our resources to a very small group, whereas the amendment to the amendment which we propose opens the thing up. It permits the government to step in where they think it is necessary, and there are many times when it is necessary. We do not want to forget the example of synthetic rubber. When we were badly in need of rubber, and when the secret formula was in the hands of certain people in the United States-I do not want to put the name on record again because it has been done before-the allies did not get the secret formula. It went over to Germany, in accordance with an agreement made previous to the outbreak of war. It is to the credit of this government that, under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), they established for the first time on this continent a synthetic rubber plant which successfully filled the gap that was created by the loss of our source of rubber in the east.
Risk capital could not be found to develop that industry; it had to be done by the government. Consider housing as another example. There is nothing to stop free enterprise from building houses. There is no rent control any more, and there has not been for years. The house building industry wants all the profits of a gamble and all the security and protection of government guarantees and subsidies. There is nothing to stop them from building houses. The construction industry

Natural Resources
is free. The lumber industry is free. They have hesitated because they want guarantees against losses; they want certain guarantees in so far as profits are concerned. If it were not for what the government is doing with respect to housing and underwriting the risks that are being taken, there would be very little done toward building houses in this country today.
With all due respect to him, this is another indication that the Leader of the Opposition is being unrealistic. He insists upon writing in words that would afford to one section of society only the right to develop our natural resources.
I do not want to continue any longer on this subject, Mr. Speaker. It is one upon which any of us could talk for an hour. It was debated at length last June, and the arguments today are not very different. In order that the house leader may get along to the next order of business I am prepared to rest my case on the statement made by the late Lord Bennett, to the effect that the government are the custodians of the natural resources of the country, and that they hold them in trust for all the people and not just a small group of people. The Leader of the Opposition's motion restricts the development of our resources to one privileged and private group, whereas the amendment we propose opens up the way so that all Canadians, under government direction if necessary and under co-operative development, can share in the future development of the resources of this country.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, an extremely important subject. It is one that was seriously and, I think, usefully debated in June of 1952. It is raised by this motion which contains some general principles on which I think everybody in this house is agreed and which constitute, if I may use a colloquial term, a sort of bandwagon on which everybody wants to climb; but because of the way in which these general principles, which are acceptable to everybody, are put forward, there will no doubt be differences in the way hon. members of the house are going to vote upon the amendment and the subamendment.
The members of the C.C.F. party say they are quite prepared to accept the form in which the amendment is drafted provided the words "under a system of free enterprise" are struck out. I think the hon. gentlemen who have spoken for the C.C.F. party have gone beyond what is really expressed in the amendment. As I read it, it is not restricted to development by free enterprise. It is merely an assertion that we have in this [Mr. Gillis.i
country a system of free enterprise and also a constitutional system under which the resources are the property of the crown in the right of the provinces, and that therefore the development should take place under a system of free enterprise and in collaboration with the provincial governments.
All that, I think, is something about which all of us agree. I think all of us recognize the fact that there are some things which it is more appropriate to have done by public authorities than by free enterprise. But I think we are all most happy when free enterprise does what is required to be done and public authorities do not have to intervene.
I think that statement is also acceptable to the members of the Social Credit party. They are not wedded to having everything done by free enterprise; like others, they recognize the fact that when free enterprise is doing what is required in a satisfactory way, it involves less responsibility on government bodies and is a more desirable manner of achieving the objectives sought. But what we on this side of the house cannot accept are the statements and implications in the motion that the government is opposed to the application of those principles.
We recognize, as do all other hon. members, that the natural resources of Canada are a heritage to be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians. We recognize that proper government policies are those which promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada. But of course the owners have special rights that have to be considered in the development of those natural resources for the economy of the whole country. We are ten provinces that are useful to each other. The development of each contributes to the economy of the whole nation, and the economy of the whole nation contributes to the prosperous condition of each of the ten provinces. The amendment states that the policies adopted should be policies designed to protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion; and also that they should be policies that would expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues recognize, as do the members of the Social Credit party, that all this has to take into account the realities of the conditions and the circumstances.

It is not more than a few days ago since the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was concerned about the terms of a licence for the exportation of natural gas because the terms under the existing regulations might deter the United States federal power commission from granting a licence for the importation of some of the natural gas into the western United States. That concern was not because the hon. gentleman is not sincerely and genuinely devoted to the principle of Canada first and Canada all the time; it is because the circumstances are such that the natural gas which exists in such great abundance in the Peace river district and in the adjoining district of British Columbia cannot be piped down to Vancouver just for the consumption that can be made in Vancouver and in our Canadian Pacific coast market. In order to find a market for that gas, and to bring it to the assistance of proper development on the Pacific coast it is necessary to invest so much capital that it requires carrying a larger quantity than Vancouver and the Canadian coast can consume. That larger quantity can only find a market in the adjoining western states.
I think most hon. members in the house are satisfied with the policy expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the other day, and that this situation in British Columbia was because of exceptional conditions; that we could not-as the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) said a moment ago-expect to make a deal whereby, if we supplied so many billion cubic feet of natural gas to one part of the United States, from one part of Canada, we would get back from the United States an equal quantity of their natural gas in another part of Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce expressed the view-I am no expert and have not his experience-that it was probable that it would be an economic possibility to complete a pipe line that would pipe natural gas through Canada and find within Canada a sufficient market to justify the expenditure required for that kind of pipe line.
I said we cannot admit the implications and statements that this is contrary to government policy. Hon. members of the house -and I think the legislation went through with the unanimous approval of the whole house-adopted in 1949 the act respecting forest conservation, to authorize the government to collaborate with provincial governments and enter into contractual arrangements with provincial governments for the better conservation and management of the forest resources of the Canadian people. It
Natural Resources
was only this session, I think, that the house again unanimously agreed that it was good policy that was being expressed in Bill No. 109, to authorize the granting of assistance to all provinces for the conservation of water resources. Those two were government measures. I am not taking any special credit for their having been government measures. They are Canadian measures. They are measures desired by Canadians generally for the welfare of Canadians generally.
I think the same kind of applause that has just greeted this statement was heard when the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) explained the position of the government with respect to the suggestion- if it was only a suggestion, or application if it amounted to an application-that the water of the uninhabited northwest regions of Canada be diverted into Alaska to develop electricity in that part of United States territory. I think everyone applauded the declaration of the minister that that would not be done at least until it had been ascertained that those resources could not be used to advantage within Canada as motive power for industries to be established in Canada itself.
Then the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) quoted something from the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, when he was prime minister of Canada. Well, that is something with respect to which one could find other contrasting statements. But it is, nevertheless, the guiding principle that I am sure would be followed by whomsoever had the responsibility of presiding over a government in Canada. There may be diverging views as to the extent to which circumstances require or justify its being applied in one set of circumstances, and the extent to which it could be applied in another set of circumstances. But that is always a matter of judgment. I am convinced that whatever party one professes to belong to, one is anxious in a given set of circumstances to do that which will be best not only for a small group of Canadians, but for Canadians generally, for the development of this country.
We are all equally proud of our Canadian citizenship. We are all equally proud of the vast extent of our country and the great natural resources with which it has been endowed. No doubt we are all believers that the fourteen million-up to nearly fifteen million-people who are Canadians today do not represent the numbers who will be Canadians in half a century or a century from now. And we are all most anxious that those more numerous Canadians have as good reason as we have to be proud of their Canadian citi-

Natural Resources
zenship; and that requires us to be very careful in our management of those natural resources.
I am going to repeat something I have said before; that I was very, very favourably impressed while flying over, during the course of five or six days last September, the western coast of British Columbia and Vancouver island, to see the immense forest resources that we have on that western slope of the Rocky mountains. And I was impressed to see the rapidity with which the terrible damage that, I am told, was caused less than a quarter of a century ago around Trail, had disappeared as a result of the work of nature in reproducing the vegetation of that region.


Howard Charles Green: And taking the poison out of the smoke.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They took the poison out of the smoke, of course. When they ceased giving off those obnoxious fumes, nature got to work and repaired the damage that had been caused previously, and did it very rapidly and very effectively. As I have already said in the house, just before that I had been up in the lake St. John district and had been impressed by the fact that there was from $125 million to $150 million worth of metal being marketed from that region, to which there was being contributed from the resources of Canada nothing but Canadian labour and the electricity produced by the running streams of our Canadian rivers.
We have made mistakes; but I do not see the picture in as grim a light as was portrayed tonight by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). Yes, we have made mistakes. But time is not so short; and I think that with honest and sincere co-operation among all levels of government it is still possible to foresee a future where there will be perhaps several times as many Canadians to share the wealth of this country as there are at the present time. We trust they will not feel that we have impaired and permanently damaged the great heritage we received from our forefathers, and that we are going to hand down to them.
It will require things like the Canada Forestry Act; and, more than the act, it will require action under that act. It will require things like an act to authorize the granting of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources; and it will require action thereunder.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the South Saskatchewan dam?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The South Saskatchewan dam is a dam that is projected on a river which carries immense quantities of water to

Hudson bay, where it produces no apparent benefit for any Canadian. But the cost of that dam should not have to be of the magnitude pictured in the royal commission's report; or, if it is, I do not think any government would attempt to justify to the Canadian public that it was a prudent investment.
That is something about which there is disagreement, the cost estimated for that project. There are very wide divergencies between the estimates which have been made; and that is something which should be further considered, because no one sitting in the seat before which I stand at the moment would recommend to parliament a thing which he did not believe was a proper investment in the interests not only of a certain portion of the people of Saskatchewan, or even all the people of Saskatchewan, but in the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole.
That is worthy of further consideration, whether or not there be elections in the offing. When elections are in the offing we have to give consideration to the effect of our conduct and the effect of our words upon those who, after all, are our judges. But I believe, and I think most hon. members believe, that the best case we can put before them is that which will induce them to believe that we are being frank and honest with them, and are prepared to take the consequences for the mistakes we make, always being careful to make as few mistakes as possible.
We have to oppose this amendment, not because the general principles are things with which any of us disagree but because we cannot agree that the conduct of the government has been such that we have to be blamed for not properly implementing policies based on those general principles. Instead of the language it does use, had it read-
Whereas the natural resources of Canada are a heritage that should continue to be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians, this house is of the opinion that consideration should continue to be given to a policy which does under a free system and in close association and collaboration with the provinces:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources;
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources;
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada-and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians.
-we would, of course, be prepared to agree with it. But hon. gentlemen opposite do not feel they can say that we have been doing that. They must say we have failed to do that, and ask the house to condemn us for having failed to do it. That, of course, is a position we cannot accept. I hope that

there are enough members in the house who feel that we do not deserve condemnation to defeat both the subamendment and the amendment, and I hope there will be in the country enough who will feel that we do not deserve that condemnation to accept the fact that we have voted against this amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as I interpret the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the whole issue between us is a difference of words which amounts only to this: We say that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy under a free enterprise system, while the government would have been willing to accept the statement that we continue to give consideration to such a policy. *
I must admit that if the whole division of voting in this house is to rest upon such a refinement of words, then it will seem to be extremely difficult to conceive of a type of resolution that could be framed which would meet the government's sensibilities in matters of this kind.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Perhaps if we collaborated in drawing them up there would not be that difference.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes; the government would like to have one party in this house so there would be no division of opinion at all. But we do not believe in a one-party system. We believe in the exchange of ideas under a two-party system, and we do not believe that we must conform to the views of the government in order to be useful members of this parliament.
We have put forward a resolution which, according to the Prime Minister, varies in no way from his ideas except that instead of saying that we wish a continuance of policies of this kind, we say there should be the introduction immediately of a national overall policy of the nature we have described. That, according to the words of the Prime Minister, is the whole issue between us.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I presume the hon. gentleman accepts the qualifications I indicated in my remarks, that we are not to take these terms as being absolutely rigid, that there are circumstances which require some departure from the application of the general principles.


George Alexander Drew: I had intended to come to that, because in that part I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. In so far as his comments related to the views put forward by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) I do agree with him, but when the words "free enterprise" are used as describing the system that we desire, under no reasonable circumstances could it be suggested that we
Natural Resources
are seeking to impose a rigid limitation, that only under a system of free enterprise can any development take place. I must say that it would be peculiarly inconsistent for me to assert that in view of the fact that it has not been so long since I was justifying a rather important undertaking under a publicly-owned system in the province from which I come.
No, I agree that there are cases where, because of the monopolistic character of the production, it is desirable that the government take under its own direction the development of something that is for the general use of all the people and which is not something that can be dealt with under the ordinary competitive terms of a free enterprise system.
Having said that may I go further and say that I do think the hon. member for Cape Breton South has misconceived both the words of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as he was at that time, and the application of the words which he has quoted. He referred to a statement by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett to the effect that the government is the trustee on behalf of the people of the natural resources of the country. He referred to a statement by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett that there had been cases where those assets had been disposed of on terms that did not represent their real value at the time they were handed over. That has nothing whatever to do with the belief anyone may hold that there are advantages in a free competitive system. Surely no one is going to suggest here that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was an opponent of the competitive system of free men and women upon which the strength of free nations has been built.
I go further and say that we should examine at this time just what is indicated in the suggestion that resources should be placed entirely under the control and operation of the government for their future development. I hope no one will suggest that I am making invidious comparisons when I point out that we can easily see examples of complete ownership and operation. We have it in Russia. We had it in Germany and in other countries.
One of the reasons the free nations of the western world demonstrated greater strength in the war for freedom which took place only a few years ago was the collective strength of free people, where individuals exercised their own intelligence and competed with each other, and produced the results of competition. Those nations were stronger than the nations where the initiative of individuals was submerged under the monolithic state. Our secret weapon in the last world war, the weapon which was most effective in defeating German military might, was the strength of the nations

Natural Resources
where the collective power of free individuals gave to those nations that flexibility that comes only when there is a full belief in the free spirit of men and women.
Freedom is indivisible. We believe in freedom. When we say "free enterprise" we are not for one moment suggesting that the resources of this country be handed over for exploitation by any limited group. That is not what free enterprise means, in spite of what may be said. Certainly there have been abuses under free enterprise, and certainly there have been the most terrible abuses under complete government monopoly of all the powers of the state. As between the two I leave any thoughtful person to judge as to which he would prefer.
There are abuses, and let us make sure that in every way we can, by the collective judgment of free men and women, we eliminate those abuses. But under a proper system of supervision of our resources let us be sure that in this young nation we do not stifle the spirit of our people by handing over to the state the power to place in the hands of men and women whom they appoint the complete responsibility for the development of those resources. Oh, I only wish that everyone could see what happens when that is carried to its extreme. I and others in this house have seen what happened in Russia where the full power of the state is exercised in every segment of human activities. Do not think for one moment that inequalities are ended there. In no country in the world are inequalities greater than in Russia, where it is only the servants of the state who have the luxury, the comfort of position, the automobiles and all the things that go with the prerequisites of office.
No one who has seen state operation carried to its extreme will ever suggest for one moment that, whatever abuses may have occurred here from time to time, they are better under an absolute state monopoly. What we want above all else is to retain the freedom to correct abuses and, under a system which eliminates abuses, invite the competition of free men and women to give to all young Canadians the hope of success in the years ahead by hard work, with the education and spirit that has been given to them.
In so far as the words "free enterprise" are concerned, we certainly placed them in this motion with a definite purpose in view. We want our resources treated as assets that are in fact the assets of all the people of Canada.
I have had occasion before to deal with this situation, and not to speak about it alone; and I have acted in accordance with my own belief that they are assets that belong to all the people of Canada, and that they should

not be made the special privilege of any small group. Nevertheless, when it comes to the actual industry that grows up from the use of those resources, let us retain the advantage of that kind of competition which brings to its full development the spirit of a free people.
Having said that in regard to this motion, and recognizing the sincerity of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in putting forward the arguments he has placed on the record in this house, may I say that we agree with him that most certainly there should be no improper exploitation of our resources, and most certainly one section of society should never have a limited advantage which can be conferred upon them. There have been abuses, and doubtless he had some of those abuses in mind when he put his argument forward; but let us all join in insisting upon that type of regulation which will avoid any unfair advantage to any particular group of people but will open to the widest the opportunities that can be made available to our young people, by the hope that can be offered to them that by initiative and hard work they can go out and build their own future as their parents did before them.
In all these things of course there are certain qualifications that must always enter into this subject. I notice it has been said here that we have put forward a view that is not consistent with the best interests of one part of Canada, and perhaps of Canada as a whole, when we have urged that in using the natural gas of this country we should insist upon a policy which gives first consideration to Canadian development. I certainly do not in any way withdraw from the position I have taken that in the use of our natural resources, whether it be natural gas, oil or anything else, we should give first consideration to the development of our own country, and that we should bear in mind that in the use of these resources we have a choice between creating employment for Canadians or employment for others. I have not suggested at any time that we should deny to others the opportunity to use our resources on any basis that does not imperil the continuing availability of those resources for our own development in the years that lie ahead.
I did say, and I repeat now, that in the carrying of natural gas to eastern Canada it is to the advantage not only of eastern Canada but of Alberta itself that the general interests of Canada be considered, and I am convinced that the people of Alberta will be best served if they have the sure and certain markets of Canada available to them rather

than markets which at any time might be interfered with, if they are carrying that gas over a long distance to points where the legal supervision, of the pipe lines will not be under Canadian control. We have put forward our own clear idea of how exchanges of gas and other natural resources can be carried out. But when it comes to the carrying of gas to eastern Canada, we suggest that a Canadian route is preferable to a route which denies to Canadians the ultimate control over the supplies that will be carried in that way.
So far as the main motion is concerned, I regret that the government feels it necessary to draw a fine distinction about the wording. I suggest to the Prime Minister that while in 1949 we had an act respecting forest conservation, and this year we had an act respecting the conservation of water resources, these fall far short of an over-all national policy consistent with the words set out in this motion, which would at this time decide that in future the development for the advantage of Canadians is going to be the first concern in the use of the extraordinarily rich resources that we possess.
A decision of a similar kind was made some time ago in regard to the forest resources to which the Prime Minister has referred. At the time that decision was made members of the Liberal party, as well as members of the Conservative party, joined in a national policy in regard to the use of those resources. We are simply seeking at this time, when fabulous resources have become available to us, to establish a similar policy in regard to these new resources now available; and it is our hope as well that this motion, which does not condemn the government in any terms it contains, but seeks for a declaration of policy, might receive the favourable consideration of hon. members.


Angus MacInnis: Like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) I wonder what the purpose of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is in bringing a motion of this kind before the house without giving the rest of us any notice that it is to be made. Just before he sat down he said that this was not a motion condemning the government. But if what he is asking to be done has already been done, why the motion? If it has not been done, then certainly it is a motion condemning the government. As far as I am concerned, that is neither here nor there. The government has many more able people than I to defend their position, and I think the Prime Minister did it very well a moment ago.
Natural Resources
What I want to draw attention to, and what I really rose to speak about, are the amazing series of arguments that the Leader of the Opposition used. He brought Russia into the picture with the idea of giving the impression that those of us who advocate something other than capitalism want the Russian system. The term "free enterprise" is used instead of capitalism. Capitalism got too smelly and they had to get a new name, free enterprise; but, for those of us who do not swallow that hook, line and sinker, he tried to show that we advocate complete control of everything under a dictatorship such as exists in Russia.
The hon. gentleman knows better than that, that we do not want anything of the kind and we would oppose it just as much as he would or those who sit behind him would. But some of us have read history, and we cannot forget what free enterprise or capitalism was when it was really free, before there was any control by government, before there was any enactment of factory laws, before there was any development of the trade unions to protect the workers in industry, before there was any of those things. We know what free enterprise was and we know what capitalism was; and we know what capitalism would be today if it were freed of the controls which socially-minded governments everywhere have imposed upon it.
May I say that all of the great fighting in world war II was not done by the peoples of the free nations. On many occasions I have had to argue against people who would tell me that, because of Russia's fine record in the war, her people having accomplished that great record of achievements, there must surely be something in their system of government that enabled them to do that. In order to show that a good military record was not essentially a matter of good government, all one had to do was point out what the nazi armies had done before the free world and a big section of the totalitarian world got together to stop them.
Tonight the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) tried to explain what he meant by the phrase "under a system of free enterprise". Unfortunately for him the hon. gentleman spoke on that subject when this group moved a similar amendment to a similar motion made by him on June 16, 1952. I read from page 3287 of Hansard for that day. After criticizing some of the statements made by the leader of this group, who at that time, spoke and moved a subamendment, the Leader of the Opposition said:
On the other hand I do not think the record of governments in supervising-

Natural Resources
Note the word "supervising".
-the use of these resources in itself is a very good argument in favour of giving still greater authority to a government not only to supervise but to go apparently a step further and engage in processing as well.
I would like all members of the house to pay particular attention to the next few words.
It was for that very reason that this motion sought to make it clear in advocating the further processing, as well as the conservation of these resources-
Not only the things we have done under various acts of parliament to which the Prime Minister referred but the processing and the conservation of those resources as well.
. . . we believe it is under the free enterprise system that this work will best be carried on and the highest measure of employment will be created.
There you have his real ideas. Not only must processing be carried on without interference by government, but conservation must be carried on without interference by government.
We just do not go along with that at all, because we know what business has done to our natural resources. We also know what conditions in this country were when free enterprise had a free hand, when we had the great depression of the thirties. Let us not forget that it is war and the fear of war that has enabled free enterprise or capitalism to do what we see today. If the prop of war production was pulled out from under it there is nothing to indicate that we would not be back again where we were in the hungry thirties. Instead of there being opportunities for young people there would be nothing better than doss houses and rides on the t6p of freight cars.


Mr. Poulioi:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Tom Goode: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have some remarks I wish to make on this motion, and I would ask you to call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this debate on the motion to go into supply. Then we shall consider the estimates of the following departments: We
Business of the House shall start with the Department of External Affairs. I understand that my colleague must leave for Washington with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) during the week, and we shall ask for the co-operation of hon. members in disposing of his estimates. Then we shall take the departments of defence production, national health and welfare, veterans affairs and mines and technical surveys.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 5, 1953