1954-03-02

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the second report of the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Fulton:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved:: That the petitions for private bills presented on February 26, 1954, together with the reports made thereon by the clerk of petitions on March 1, 1954, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable, namely:
1.	Of Claire Labelle Cousineau, divorce;
2.	Of Isabel Mary Peebles Brown Macartney-Filgate, divorce;
3.	Of Margaret Pearl McNamara Rowlatt, divorce;
4.	Of Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company for an act amending its act of incorporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 314, for the relief of John Wright Sinclair.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Florence Jean Moffatt Tucker Johnston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Margaret Hilda Popper Parker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Cecil Alfred Ellis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Robert Jackson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Madeleine Marguerite Faure Eden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of William James Cutler McKillop.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Agnes Mary Kelly Winters.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Florence Elizabeth Hough Topp.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Roch Cote.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Domina Emerius Lefebvre.-Mr. Hunter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it a fact that orders have been issued to the staff of his department to file an affidavit, in addition to producing official receipts for charitable donations, when submitting their income tax returns, which procedure is illegal?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer is that instructions to members of the staff are matters of internal operation and are confidential. It is not considered to be illegal to give instructions to members of the staff with reference to their own personal income tax returns.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. With reference to the Reuters news dispatch appearing in a morning paper headed "Atom Generator for Electricity Planned for the United Kingdom", could the minister advise the house what steps are being taken towards producing electric power from atomic energy in Canada?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: Several weeks ago a group was established to make an evaluation study of atomic energy for power purposes. The members of the group are representatives of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission and of several private power companies. The study is well advanced, and it is hoped that actual plans for the installation can be undertaken shortly.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the order for

Inquiries of the Ministry imprisonment made by Chief Justice McRuer against Edward Bryan of Cornwall the other day for contempt of court. Without in any way implying that this was an improper course, I would ask the minister upon what authority Chief Justice McRuer could, in fact, substitute the sentence of a fine for imprisonment after the sentence had been commenced, and whether or not the governor in council issued an order in council in order to permit him to exercise, on the Queen's behalf, mercy, clemency or pardon.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I gather from my hon. friend's question, Mr. Speaker, that what he wants to know is whether the governor general in council passed an order in council which was the basis for the order made by Chief Justice McRuer. The answer to that question is, no.
With regard to the rest of his question, may I say that it has to do with the administration of justice which, as I think he knows, comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial authorities, and his question might more properly be asked of the attorney general of Ontario.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I direct to the Minister of Justice a supplementary question arising out of the answer he has just given to the hon. member for Prince Albert. I wonder if the minister would care to make some amplification or modification of his answer, because if he does not care to do so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
should put his question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister whether, in the absence of such further modification, we are to take it that the exercise of the prerogative of clemency Res within provincial jurisdiction?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend should not take that; he knows quite well that is not so, and he does not need me to instruct him on that point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your answer means that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My answer means no such thing. My answer was to the effect that if there were any defect in the procedure adopted or in the order made by the chief justice, it has to do with the administration of justice in Ontario which, under the British North America Act, comes squarely within the responsibility of the provincial authorities.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government considering any amendments to the United Nations charter, in view of its revision next year? If so, is the government prepared to submit its suggestions to the committee on external affairs with a view to stimulating interest in Canada in the forthcoming revision?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member was
good enough to give me notice of his question. The answer to the first part of the question is yes. Consideration is being given to this matter. With respect to the second part, as he probably knows, the 1955 assembly of the United Nations may decide to establish a charter revision conference. Pending that decision, a resolution was passed at the last assembly asking the secretariat to do certain preparatory work in this regard and make certain documentary studies. The government appreciates the interest shown previously in this matter by the committee on external affairs, and I would hope that at an appropriate time the committee might be used to give consideration to it; especially when we have received the preparatory documentary work which is now being undertaken by the United Nations secretariat.



FAO COMMITTEE MEETING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is Canada represented at the meeting of the FAO committee on commodity problems dealing with the problem of agricultural surpluses, which is currently being held at Washington?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My colleague the Minister of Agriculture is more familiar than I am with FAO problems, so I shall ask him to answer the question.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The Acting Prime Minister has shown me a copy of the question, and the answer is that, when the committee was set up during the FAO conference at Rome to meet in Washington to consider commodity problems, Canada was not placed upon it. We

have not a representative there, but it was understood that if it was necessary to have an observer they could call upon Mr. Hopper, who is at the embassy in Washington representing Canadian agriculture, and if they were considering questions which might concern Canada it was hoped he would be called in for discussion. Up until now he has not been called upon.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: On
Friday last, the hon. member for Prince Albert asked me a question seeking information about the delivery of mail in Korea. Today the hon. member for Greenwood called my office seeking similar information. Since speaking on Friday last to the hon. member for Prince Albert, I have had inquiries made in regard to mail service to the troops in Korea and am advised that there has been no justifiable cause for complaints. I have also had inquiries made at the Department of National Defence and have received a similar reply.
I thought that hon. members would like to know also that up to the present it has been possible to forward all letter mail by air, whether prepaid for air or surface transmission. It so happens that the necessary extra space has been available on the aircraft, and advantage has been taken of it to transport surface letters as well by that means. Records show that it generally takes from three to six days for this mail, which is dispatched three times per week from Vancouver, to reach the troops. It naturally takes longer for parcels. They are dispatched on an average once a week, with a transmission time of about one month. The elapsed time will vary, depending on whether or not the parcel makes a good connection with the transport.
We are confident that the mail service to the troops in Korea is operating on a sound basis, but I would like to assure the hon. members that if they know of any specific instances where mail has been unreasonably delayed, and will give me the facts, I shall be glad to have a detailed inquiry made and take any corrective measures that may be possible.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I
ask a supplementary question? Will the Postmaster General ascertain if there is any means of increasing the frequency of mails, perhaps by co-operation with the United States
Inquiries of the Ministry authorities, because at the present time there seeems to be dissatisfaction amongst the troops?


Alcide Côté: I shall be glad to look into the matter.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G-. McCullough (Mcose Mountain):: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On page 2562 of Hansard for March 1, 1954, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) interjected the following remark into his speech:
... if the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) can restrain his levity . . .
I take exception to that, Mr. Speaker. There was no levity on my part and no interjection. However, I may have had a pained expression due to the apparent lack of understanding of the serious ramifications of unemployment indicated by the words of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the
Secretary of State if he would please make inquiries to see whether he can expedite an order of the house passed in my name on February 8, 1954, for a copy of letters and other correspondence in connection with a V.L.A. project in the vicinity of Kamloops. I point out that it is nearly a month now since the order was issued.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Slate):: Certainly, sir.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. V/. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris): I
should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has a reply to my question of February 15. .
Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: I have a reply to the question put by the hon. member, but it does give rise to some other matters which should be dealt with at the same time and they are still receiving consideration.

Deportation of Polish Seaman


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. When will he reply to the question which I asked him, and which is of the utmost importance in the dominion, concerning the replacement of the crown in the insignia of the Royal Canadian Air Force? I do not want any other answers, but I want the one answer.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member did not hear or understand the question put by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, which preceded his question by about a week, and to which I have just given an interim reply. The urgency of this matter may be judged from the fact that the order, not taking away the crown but introducing a new badge, was passed just over two years ago. The badge came into use about a year ago.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this government does many things about which very few people hear until years later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: On a question of privilege, this is an urgent matter for all Canadians, and I want a reply.

The house resumed, from Monday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.



DEPORTATION OF RICHARD NOWALINSKI

Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, by ancient usage and time-honoured custom an opportunity is granted any private member who has a grievance, or who feels that an injustice has been done to any private citizen, to bring this to the attention of the government and the house before supply is passed. I have such a grievance which I wish to place before the house at this time.
On July 7 of last year the Seaboard Shipping Company of British Columbia notified the immigration officers in Vancouver that a certain Polish seaman had deserted from a vessel of theirs, which was known as the Nordpol. At the same time the captain of the Nordpol notified the immigration authorities at Chemainus, British Columbia, that this seaman had deserted. The seaman's name was Richard Nowalinski.
Richard Nowalinski on the following day reported to the immigration officer in Victoria. There he explained the situation to the officer. He was granted a conditional release on a bond of $1,000 being placed on his behalf
[Mr. Claxton 1
by the president of the Catholic Women's League of Victoria, and other people who are interested in looking after the welfare of new Canadians arriving in this country. As a result of this bond being deposited, Richard Nowalinski was able to obtain employment as chief engineer on one of the vessels of the Victoria Tug Company Limited, he having become an experienced engineer and one familiar with diesel engines in Poland before arriving in this country.
The order for deportation was eventually passed and was subsequently appealed by Richard Nowalinski, the Roman Catholic bishop of Victoria and other people supporting that appeal. Mr. W. McGregor, managing director of the Victoria Tug Company, reported that this man's work had been eminently satisfactory, and offered him a permanent position with that company.
However, on the request from the Seaboard Shipping Company in a letter signed by Mr. E. J. Moller of that company to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Vancouver, Nowalinski was tranferred to Vancouver. The request was made in these words:
Please arrange to have him-
That is Richard Nowalinski.
-transferred to your Vancouver jail at your earliest convenience.
That was dated July 22, 1953. That Polish seaman remained in the Vancouver jail of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, in spite of numerous protests by various people, until the 31st day of December, 1953, when, at almost a moment's notice, he was hurried away from Vancouver under police escort, was sent across to Vancouver island, and on to Port Alberni, where he was placed on board another vessel and was shipped out of the country.
The unusual circumstances of a man who apparently had only two crimes against him, one that of leaving a ship, and the other of hatred of communism and a determination to get away from behind the iron curtain, were brought to my attention at the end of last year and caused a great deal of interest on the Pacific coast. When it was found that an order had been issued for his deportation and that an appeal was made, a form known as immigration form 55 was signed as an application by two people, Mrs. W. Rogers, who is head of the Catholic women's group looking after immigrants coming to this country, and Mr. William McGregor, managing director of the Victoria Tug Company, asking that Richard Nowalinski be granted permission to come to this country and reside here.

After giving a brief description of his illegal entry into Canada and explaining that he worked as chief engineer on board a tug owned by the applicant's company, before being sent over to Vancouver, the application then went on to say:
The applicant therefore knows-
That is, the managing director of Victoria Tug Company.
-the proposed immigrant personally and knows his qualifications, and is most anxious to obtain his services, as it is impossible to find replacement for this man in this area.
The report goes on to say:
Representations have apparently been made to the minister by the local Roman Catholic bishop and Mr. McGregor.
And then, in the words of the immigration official who took this submission:
This application is submitted at this time as the applicant feels that since the proposed immigrant is a refugee and cannot obtain a valid passport from any country, he will be unable to land at any port to make application on his own behalf for admission to Canada.
Then the application goes on to say that the settlement arrangements are satisfactory, and this is signed by the immigration officer and approved by Mr. J. McDonald, acting immigration officer in charge at Victoria.
However, at the request of the shipping company, this man was taken from the employment where he was earning money and his own keep, and carrying out a useful job, and was placed in jail in Vancouver. That was in July of last year. From his cell in the immigration jail he wrote to various people soliciting their help. Amongst those to whom he wrote was the president of the United Nations. He set out his case, and that appeal was eventually sent to the immigration branch here in Ottawa. The appeal is given in the letter which Nowalinski wrote to the United Nations' office. The office of the high commissioner for refugees outlines the experiences which this unfortunate man had after he escaped from Poland in order to avoid the penalties which an anti-communist might expect in a country behind the iron curtain. He wrote not only on behalf of himself, but on behalf of two other immigrants, one a Yugoslav and the other another Pole who were then also in the immigration office jail at Vancouver.
This is his letter to the president of the United Nations:
We are respectfully approaching you with a request for the help of the United Nations, as we do not know to whom or to where we should properly apply. We are political refugees from Poland and Yugoslavia, and would like to know whether the so-called right of asylum actually exists, and if so, where we have to apply for it.
Deportation of Polish Seaman
I have so far sought it many times, in Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Egypt, England and now Canada, but all those countries categorically turned me down.
1 fled from Poland on a Swedish ship in 1949, and am to this very day without the right to stay in any country at all. From the Swedish boat I took refuge in Egypt, where I asked for asylum. This was refused, and I spent three months in prison there, after which I was put on a Finnish boat. When I arrived in the United Kingdom, the local immigration authorities put me in prison, where I spent fourteen days before being returned to the boat I had arrived on. On reaching Belgium, I discovered that the boat was bound for Poland, so I naturally ran away, and reported to the police in Antwerp, asking whether I could stay in Belgium. They arrested me and I spent another two months in prison, after which they put me on a Norwegian boat. Arriving in Norway several months later, I applied to the local authorities for the right to stay in that country, but. of course, met with refusal. After six weeks in prison, they packed me off on another Norwegian boat, on which I spent two years.
In the meantime, I wrote on several occasions to the immigration authorities in Norway and to IRO in Paris, likewise receiving negative replies. At the moment, we are being detained by the immigration authorities in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, for being in Canada illegally.
As we have never been punished for criminal offences, we cannot understand why, or for how long, we must continue to wander like vagabonds over the face of the earth and lodge in prisons all over the world.
At the time of the German invasion, we fought in defence of our country's freedom, and I personally served for three years in the Polish army.
The current political situation is such that it is absolutely impossible for us to return to our homeland. Yet no one else will take us in.
Accordingly, we respectfully ask the United Nations to examine our difficult position, as there is no other authority which is willing to take an interest in us or to look into our circumstances.
As none of us have a valid passport, it is impossible for us to seek legal entry or immigration into any country whatsoever. All we want is to be able to find a permanent home and work, no matter where. We would like to mention that our ages range from 25 to 32, and that we are skilled workers, and do not wish to spend our lives wandering all over the place in ships.
We are human beings, and as such are surely entitled to settle down in a free country, and to stay and work there. We earnestly beg the United Nations once again to consider our difficult plight, and await your favourable reply very anxiously, but also very hopefully.
That letter was sent on with the request that this man's condition be inquired into. It was pointed out that the purpose of writing was to urge that the case be given every consideration and to state that if an investigation disclosed that these persons were worthy of help the international rescue committee would be willing to provide them with some financial assistance. It would also be glad to contact some voluntary or ethnic societies in Vancouver to solicit their assistance in finding jobs. The letter goes on to state:
We have already contacted the Polish Canadian congress with this object in view.
Nowalinski was retained, as I have already pointed out, for this incredibly long time in

Deportation of Polish Seaman the jail in Vancouver. The reason given for his retention all that time was that the ship which had brought him to Canada was expected at almost any date. Then there was another ship of the same company that was going to come, and it would take him away. In spite of the representations which were made, in spite of the fact that it was pointed out time and time again that this man had no opportunity of making a proper application to come to Canada, that wherever his ship landed he would not be allowed to set foot on land legally, and therefore would be denied the facilities of making proper application, this man was eventually deported. The application to which I have already referred was submitted in Canada on August 26 by the managing director of the Victoria Tug Company. Shortly after that Nowalinski became quite seriously ill and despondent. He appeared before a medical officer, and that medical officer reported that his condition was quite serious; that he was in a very depressed state of mind and the doctor was fearful that if he was placed on board a ship and sent away he might commit suicide.
This man had a family, with one child, who were in Poland. He had never heard of them since 1949 when he left that country. He did not know whether they were alive or not. I said they were in Poland; they were in Poland if alive, but he had had no communication with them at all.
When this matter was brought to my attention, I asked the minister's department whether it would be possible to allow this man out of jail again, as his health was suffering; whether it would be possible for him to go to his friends in Victoria just for Christmas. The minister's department concurred in that suggestion. They felt it would be perfectly reasonable to allow him out of jail provided that adequate bonds were put up, and he could go to his friends to have a rest and get a decent meal at the Christmas holiday season. In fact, the department here wired their branch office in Vancouver instructing that this man should be released, but apparently that did not meet with the approval of the shipping company, which seems to have had some concern in this matter. I have a letter which was sent by Mr. E. Just Moller, operating department of the Seaboard Shipping Company Limited, to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Vancouver, dated on Christmas eve, December 24, 1953, which reads:
Referring to your telephonic suggestion that Nowalinski should be set free because of the Christmas holidays, and considering the six-month stay in your custody, we regret that we cannot agree. The owners have instructed us to sign him on board the M.S. Nordpol, due in Seattle about January 1, 1954.
[Mr. Pearkes.l

Despite the instructions sent out from the office of the minister here in Ottawa to the officials in Vancouver the shipping company overrode those instructions. They said, this man may not go out to his friends for Christmas. It must be remembered that the only crime was of trying to escape from behind the iron curtain. However, there were people on the Pacific coast who were interested in this man's welfare and they besought the office of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Vancouver to do something rather than to wait for the Nordpol to arrive in Vancouver.
Then an incident occurred, which was perhaps happy for the department and the shipping company. Another vessel arrived on the Pacific coast. There had been strikes and men had left the vessel because of poor conditions. This vessel has not a very savoury reputation on the Pacific coast. There was thus an opportunity for the local officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to shanghai or press-gang this unfortunate man and send him under police escort on board this vessel, the S.S. Calygera, just an hour or an hour and a half before the vessel sailed. There was no opportunity for him to get in touch with his friends to say goodbye or anything like that.
The vessel left Port Alberni and has made its way to Capetown, South Africa. This man wired from Capetown indicating that he was anxious to know whether it would be possible for him to submit an application form from Capetown for re-entry into Canada. He was told that there were no immigration facilities in Capetown and he must wait until such time as he reached some port in Europe where he would be allowed to disembark and go before the proper medical authorities and make a new and proper application for entry into Canada. Under date of February 22 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) wrote to one of the parties who were interested in Nowalinski's welfare and he concluded with this remark:
However, as the offence against Mr. Nowalinski is solely desertion, this will not be held against him if he applies for permission to return to Canada through the proper authorities and is found able to comply with all the requirements.
If this unfortunate man is not able to get off his vessel or if his vessel does not go to a port where there are the proper facilities of the immigration department, how will it be possible for him to submit a proper application? Already an application has been made by a man who is prepared to give him employment with the Victoria Tug Company. He has been tested there and found to be a hard worker and a suitable man.

I am the last person in the world to condone any form of desertion. I realize how essential it is for the government and the immigration authorities to clamp down on seamen deserting ships and trying to make illegal entry into Canada. But surely there is a difference between a Lascar seaman trying to desert from an ordinary freighter and a refugee who is trying to find asylum after having escaped from behind the iron curtain. Surely when any responsible person in Canada, such as a director of a company, is prepared to put up bond-I have it in writing-of $50,000 for this man, or who has already put up a bond of $1,000 and guarantees him a job; surely when this man has made a proper application on the form supplied by the department endorsed by a responsible lady who is president of the Catholic Women's League of Victoria and who has a working organization behind her guaranteeing this man employment, guaranteeing him a home, prepared to take him into her own home; surely when she is supported by the clergy of his church, one of whom is an escaped Pole, I cannot help thinking that a distinction should be made between a refugee of that nature and an ordinary seaman coming to this country.
I feel that I have been justified in raising this issue at this time. I appeal to the minister to take some action in connection with this case and not to have this poor unfortunate man being shipped' from vessel to vessel and hounded all over the world without any place to go, without any opportunity of filling in the proper papers, when an application for his admission into Canada has been signed already.
I know that Mrs. Rogers is not a close relative, but this man has proved his worth.
I appeal to the minister to take some action in connection with this case and see if something cannot be done, and also to give consideration to similar cases where refugees from behind the iron curtain are seeking asylum in this country.
Hen. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief and indicate almost immediately something which probably will meet with the approval of my hon. friend. May I say without any criticism whatever that had the hon. member spoken to me before this debate commenced, or had he notified me any time in the last 24 hours that it was his intention to raise this point, we probably could have avoided this debate. I shall conclude what I have to say by reading a departmental memo which came to my hand just now after the hon. member began speaking and for which
2, 1954	2573
Deportation of Polish Seaman I sent, not having had any notice up to that time that the hon. member intended to raise this point. The memo reads:
General Pearkes now inquires as to whether this man may be examined and what travel document we will accept as it is indicated this man has not been allowed to remain or land in any country. He understands-
I presume that is the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
-that the vessel on which he is now employed will be proceeding to the United Kingdom from South Africa.
I paraphrase the next sentence for obvious reasons, that certain inquiries are now satisfied.
When examined at Victoria, Nowalinski was in possession of a Free Poland passport issued at Dublin, Eire, on May 17, 1950, revalidated to September 4, 1951.
In order that the case may be concluded, I would recommend that the application of Mr. McGregor be accepted as meeting the requirements under section 18 (2) of the regulations and that our London office be instructed that they may grant visa on his meeting health requirements.
There follow the initials of the recording officer and a stamp on the corner "approved". I take it that that would not have to come to my attention since the department would have taken the appropriate action.
I hope that this satisfies my hon. friend. I agree he has every reason to raise this question because we are regularly confronted with the problem he has put so clearly, namely, how to distinguish between an ordinary stowaway and one who is conceivably a refugee who happens to have taken up seafaring as the only means of getting away from circumstances of which he disapproves.


George Randolph Pearkes: I endeavoured to get in touch with the minister's office at noon and I spoke to his officials this morning, and I might mention that the papers which I asked for last January 25 were only tabled yesterday.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will be equally prompt in endeavouring to deal with a grievance which I wish to bring to his attention and to the attention of the house. I shall try to make my statement of the matter as brief as I can, but I should point out that many of us have a real grievance in that the Minister of Finance has not yet dealt with the matter about which I wish to say a word at this time.
I refer to the continuing plight of superannuated civil servants, particularly those in the lower brackets, and also to the plight of
2574	HOUSE OF
Proposed Increase in Low Superannuations the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, especially those who are on the basic pension of only $25 a month, or little more.
It may be asked why I direct both of these matters to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I do so because it has been made clear that from the government's point of view the only way in which the government could deal with these matters is by way of putting an item in the estimates. When I have raised this matter previously during discussions on bills relating to civil service pension matters, the Minister of Finance has said that the only way to provide for an increase for superannuated civil servants in the lower brackets would be by way of an item in the estimates.
When I have raised the question of low pensions received by many C.N.R. employees it has been suggested to me that this was a matter for the C.N.R. to deal with, but as yet the C.N.R. has not taken any action, in reply to which I have pointed out that there is one small group of railway pensioners who are given some advantage by an item in the estimates. Hence both of these matters call for items to be placed in the estimates.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, before the end of this month the Minister of Finance, if he follows the annual practice, will be tabling supplementary estimates. We usually get that document towards the end of this month, and incidentally we are usually told that it has to be put through by the end of March.
I imagine the Minister of Finance is working on these supplementary estimates at the present time. That is the reason why I feel the matter is of sufficient urgency for me to raise it today in the hope that I can yet persuade the Minister of Finance to put two items in the supplementary estimates to cover the two groups of people to whom I have referred.
I do not wish to indulge in any form of witchcraft or fortune telling. I would not want to come under the ban of the Criminal Code in that respect. But I will go so far as to make the prediction that the Minister of Finance will not be bringing down supplementary estimates on many more occasions. In fact, since June 22 is not so far away I would not be surprised if on or about that date there might be quite a change in the life and affairs of the Minister of Finance. Perhaps it is surprising that I should pick on that particular date but it happens to be the date when the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada becomes 75 years


of age and I wonder whether there might not be a change involving the present Minister of Finance.
At any rate, I am sure the Minister of Finance, who has done a job which hon. members on his side of the house commend so highly, would like to tidy up some of these loose ends before he lays down this job, and I appeal to him strongly not to go out of his department leaving unfinished the problem of doing something about the pensions of these two groups of people.
With respect to the case of the superannuated civil servants, the minister knows that the figures as to their situation have been placed on the record and before the public on many occasions. I have in my hand at this moment a copy of Hansard for December 2, 1953, and I am looking at page 538 where answers are reported to questions which I asked at that time. I find that there are 325 retired civil servants drawing pensions of less than $20 a month; I find there are a total of 1,549 drawing pensions of less than $40 a month, or a total of 2,395 drawing pensions of less than $50 a month. Likewise there are 1,025 widows of retired civil servants whose pensions are less than $20 a month. There are 2,962 widows whose pensions are less than $40 a month, and there are 3,736 widows whose pensions are less than $50 a month.
As the minister knows, other jurisdictions have dealt with this problem. The government of the United Kingdom has passed bills on a number of occasions adding supplementary amounts to the pensions being received by civil servants already retired.
The United States government has done likewise. There have been at least two or three times when the position of those already retired has been improved, and when that government has recognized its responsibility to help people in view of the increase in the cost of living since they went on pension.
In this country at least two provinces, the province of Newfoundland and the province of Saskatchewan, have done something for their retired civil servants, whose pensions were in the low brackets. There are a few instances of private employers doing something along these lines. The Canadian Pacific Railway, which is not noted for its generosity in these matters, has done at least something with regard to the pensions of those in the lower brackets, between retirement and the age of 70.
As the minister knows, I believe the government should take the lead in these matters instead of always holding back and

following only what everybody else has done. However, the minister tells us, with respect to matters like this, that in his view the government should follow rather than lead. I suggest a lead has been given and that the minister should not delay any longer in dealing with this very important question.
It has been somewhat annoying to me, I may say, to have the minister tell me time and time again when I raise this question that those I am interested in have his sympathy too, that he appreciates the figures I have put forward, and so on, and that he is always prepared to give the matter consideration. But in spite of that nothing has yet been done. In the meantime, as I believe he knows, a great many representations have been made by organizations representing these people. They have been made to the minister, to other members of the government and to members in all parties and in all parts of the house.
Naturally I am in touch with a good many of these organizations, and I think it is only fair to say they have indicated to me that there have been many favourable responses from hon. members in all parts of the house. I believe that would indicate that there is wide support among the private members of this house for something being done in respect of these groups of people.
I have already given figures respecting superannuated civil servants. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways include a great number whose pensions are ridiculously low. Something was done a couple of years ago by way of improving the pension plan of the Canadian National Railways. There is no doubt but that the new plan improved the position of quite a few of those who were already retired. In fact, as of March 16, 1953, according to Hansard for that date, at pages 2953 and 2954, answers to certain questions of mine showed there were 2,728 former employees who had had their pensions increased by an average amount of $17.13 a month. However, even in respect of the improvement that took place in the case of C.N.R. employees already retired, I have to point out that with regard to those whose pensions were less than $50 a month there were only 375 who got an increase, and their average increase was only $5.76 a month. On the other hand, if you go to the upper brackets you will find that those whose pensions were $150 a month or over before the change was made had an average increase of $61.23 per month. There were only 119 of those.
Proposed Increase in Low Superannuations
Similarly, it is true that those still in the service of the Canadian National Railways have had their pension plan improved even as the civil servants of Canada have had their pension position improved so far as those still in the service are concerned. But there are these two groups, the superannuated civil servants on the one hand and the retired employees of the C.N.R. on the other, who were retired some time ago when their pension benefits were much lower and for whom nothing has been done.
May I say briefly with respect to retired Canadian National employees that, according to the figures on the pages of Hansard for March 16, 1953, to which I have already referred, there are still seventeen whose pensions are less than $25 a month. There are 3,206 whose only pension from the Canadian National Railways is the basic pension of $25 a month. There is another group of 5,832 whose pensions by various combinations range between $25 and $50 a month. I might say that the cut-off point in these figures is $49.99 a month, so when you add them all together there are 9,055 retired employees of the C.N.R. whose pensions from the railway are less than $50 a month.
It is those two groups in the main, the superannuated civil servants numbering 2,395 and 3,736 widows, together with the 9,055 retired employees of the C.N.R., all of whom are receiving less than $50 a month, about whom I feel very strongly that something should be done at this time. I am not going to spend time using the kind of argument that could very well be used, the kind of argument that the man in the street is using very forcefully these days, namely that there seems to be money available for increases of other kinds and there seem to be more increases coming in addition to the ones that have already been put through at this session of parliament. There is a motion on the order paper involving a change with respect to certain other salaries from a statutory basis to a basis whereby they will be decided by the governor in council. If I know how these things work, that means an increase is coming there. I suppose the clamour in some newspaper columns for increases in the salaries of judges will probably be looked upon favourably by the government.
The man in the street sees that money seems to be available for people in much better economic circumstances than the retired pensioners to whom 1 have referred. Why is it that year after year goes by with nothing being done by the government to meet the plight of these people, as well as
2576	HOUSE OF
Proposed Increase in Low Superannuations other groups in whom I am keenly interested? As the minister and the house know, my information and my flies on these two questions are voluminous, and I could go on but I will not. The case is on the record over a number of years and I am sure, as I have already said, that there is wide support amongst private members in all sections of the house for something being done for these people. I ask the minister not to treat this just as the same old debate that the member for Winnipeg North Centre raises every once in a while, not just as something he has got to get rid of somehow, but rather as the serious question that it is.
If I am right, the minister is now in the midst of preparing the supplementary estimates which will be brought down for the end of this fiscal year, which is at the end of this month. I plead with him in the name of these two groups of people to include in the supplementary estimates the necessary items to increase these pensions, particularly for those in the lower brackets. Let there be no further delay.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will allow me, I have a budget meeting at four o'clock and I think perhaps I should make my views clear on this question in case we are delayed. I shall try to follow the example set by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), and be brief in dealing with this very important matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And as generous?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I can do so because I have had to deal with this question on a number of other occasions. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is of course not the only member of the house who is interested in the matter. A great many members are interested in it. I have received representations from many on both sides of the house. He has cited before the figures he cited this year as to the number of pensioners under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canadian National pension plan who are in receipt of relatively small pensions.
I am not too familiar with the Canadian National pension plan because of course that is primarily the responsibility of the management of the Canadian National Railways. But I am familiar with the civil service superannuation plan because I am responsible for introducing such amendments to that plan as are made from time to time. It means very little for my hon. friend to quote figures as to the size of these pensions without indicating the length of service of the pensioner.
(Mr. Knowles.]

In point of fact, the civil service superannuation plan is probably the most generous pension plan in Canada. It is certainly one of the most generous and one of the most favourable for the pensioner. It is quite a bit more favourable than the pension plan of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to which the hon. member alluded, and in which I understand some adjustments were made.
It means very little to cite figures of pensioners who are in receipt of pensions of $15 to $20 a month. They may only have been, and probably were, in the government service a comparatively short time. One must assume that while they were employed in other walks of life they were or should have been, in common with hundreds of thousands of other Canadian citizens, making some provision for their own pension needs. I have always felt that the position of the civil service pensioner was no different from that of any other Canadian citizen who may not be eligible for a pension plan, who may not be working for a company which has a pension plan in force or is self-employed and is required to furnish his own pension either by buying annuity policies, by buying a government annuity, by investing in bonds, or by any other form of investment which he believes will make the best provision for his later years.
Since the recipients under pension provisions of that kind have no means of getting an automatic increase in their pensions because of the effect of inflation or any other cause, I have never felt that those who are in receipt of pensions provided by taxpayers who are putting up the money for them should be in a better position than those taxpayers themselves. It is for that reason I have consistently said in the house I felt there was not a case for treating civil service pensioners in any different way than the holder of any other contractual obligation. I still hold that view. Under those circumstances, I think my hon. friend will appreciate that I have no intention of recommending the inclusion in the supplementary estimates of an item to provide for an increase in those pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Liberals applaud that statement.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Notwithstanding the reasons which the minister has given, I feel that the members of this house and the government ought to give most serious consideration to the plight of all those who now find themselves unable to live upon the incomes which they are receiving, and who are unable to increase those incomes

by any means available to them. I feel that we cannot possibly escape that responsibility. In a country that is producing $24 billion worth of goods a year, there can be no conceivable excuse for permitting anyone to suffer from the lack of the necessities of life.
While I am dealing with that question, in respect of which I support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I wish to direct attention once more to the intolerable plight of our senior citizens. The cost of living has so increased that our senior citizens are again the victims of slow starvation. This is a matter not to be tolerated at all by the people of Canada, and particularly by the members of parliament in this dominion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion to go into committee of supply?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $432,490.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
129. Departmental administration, $315,090.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
210. Departmental administration, $470,422.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
443. Departmental administration, $1,456,640.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
507. Departmental administration, $2,214,867.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
368. Quebec, $10,890,000.
Mr. Harris:: Perhaps I might say just one word to repeat the understanding which I think we reached about the manner in which this particular item would be dealt with. I think it was understood that the item being called covered the construction of the national film board building in Montreal. Of course, it covers as well all the other matters in the province of Quebec, but it was agreed that we would confine discussion at first to the business of the national film board building and when that was completed we would
Supply-National Film Board carry the item after other discussion that there might be on that particular item. We would then revert to the item covering general administration of public works.
The national film board, as hon. members know, Mr. Chairman, has been confined to nine or ten buildings in the city of Ottawa since its inception, and under those conditions have done what I consider an excellent job on behalf of the public of Canada in the production and distribution of film. The film board has twice been reconstituted, so to speak, that is, a revision of its statute and its activities, the last one being in 1950, and there was a parliamentary committee of this house in 1952.
The decision which has been made to build the buildings to house the activities of the board in the city of Montreal or Ville St. Laurent, as it is more properly known, dates back at least two years and was communicated both to the committee, as I recall it, and to the house. The references were set out in certain remarks made by the Prime Minister, and referred to by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in this session, and will be given in more detail as the debate proceeds, if there is a debate. The real purpose, however, of building at this moment is to house in one building the activities of the board because of the manifest inefficiency which now exists through having to conduct their operations in nine or ten places. It is accompanied as well by a policy decision that the national film board, generally speaking, with its present activities, is a continuing need in this country, and one which this government should maintain.
I quite realize that there has been at various times criticism of the film board and its activities. But, as happens in so many cases, that criticism is in our opinion more than offset by the support given to the board by the many public bodies, and by the obvious demand for the product they turn out.
The board therefore presented to us over the past three or four years urgent requests for the construction of a suitable building. Now, before it was decided to accede to these requests it was passed upon, first by the Massey commission, and secondly by J. D. Woods and Gordon Limited. And I might interject here that I did not suggest in the statement I made earlier in this session that the J. D. Woods and Gordon report recommended a site in the city of Montreal. If any such impression was gained from what I said it was unintentional on my part. It was

Supply-National Film Board merely that they recommended a building, and the government accepted that decision.
I have noticed in the press that the building itself has been described in various terms, very few of which have any semblance of reality. It is quite true that the contract price was $5,250,000, and that is a considerable sum of money to spend at any time. But the building now contains only those items which in the opinion of the board are essential for the proper functioning of their activities.
There may be marble walls, as I have heard it reported. If so, then they are very limited, in the entrance hall itself. No luxury of that type is being indulged in, in any way. However, the equipment of the building, the essential equipment, which now is not owned by the board, and which they feel is necessary for a proper carrying out of their duties, as laid down by them, is the establishing of a stage from which they can take acting films for use in their work. They now have to rent similar facilities, and in fact do from time to time rent those facilities from others.
It is true that there is in the building a small auditorium, one which is to be used of course for the viewing of films as they are being produced, as they are being cut, and so on. The committee will understand that the production of films is an expensive process. One does not do this without the expenditure of some money. Indeed, I believe the estimates contain an item in the order of $3,200,000 this year for the national film board. This sum is expended in the production of approximately four hundred films of one kind or another, including newsreels, feature length films, so called, dub-ins, and other types of films.
For that reason, and after careful consideration of the facilities available in private industry, and recognizing that the government's position in respect of the board has always been that it is providing certain results which could not be provided otherwise, and after a review to see if that is still the case, the government concluded that it was, and thought we should vote this sum of money for the purpose of providing a building for the film board.
I do not propose to develop anything further at the moment by way of justification for the expenditure. The details of the building are of course more properly within the knowledge and competence of description of the Minister of Public Works. To some extent my remarks may have been out of order, except for the belief on our part, when we discussed this matter the other day, that it would not be possible, Mr. Chairman, to

confine the debate wholly to the actual building itself, since no doubt hon. members would like to discuss whether or not any building is needed.
However, the details of that building, its probable cost and the information as to its value, can be discussed by the Minister of Public Works, who is not only now in the position of having the terms of the contract before him but as well in my opinion, as I said before, is responsible for the present efficient management of the national film board and has brought it to the point where I think it is discharging in excellent fashion the duties laid upon it by parliament.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the time of the committee to say something about this item. May I preface my remarks with the statement that in a general way I approve of the work of the national film board. I think it is very good, and has been well conducted. As a matter of fact I have wondered at times how they have been able to carry on as well as they have in the quarters in which they were housed.
My concern with the matter arises from the one point of moving the site of the film board from Ottawa to another city, another part of the country. Unfortunately, perhaps I am guilty, along with other hon. members, of not realizing earlier that this move was imminent. As a matter of fact, it may not be possible to excuse oneself on that score; but whether we can or cannot, we are confronted now with a situation in which a contract has been let for the construction of a building in Montreal for the film board.
My request today is for a withholding of the actual work under that contract until some matters of policy are discussed and settled, and the announcement concerning them is made.
I think perhaps it would be of interest when discussing this matter to look at the National Film Act, itself. If one reads the headnotes in the act he will find that the purposes of the board are set out in section 9. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to place it on record. Section 9 is as follows:
The board is established to initiate and promote the production and distribution of films in the national interest and in particular
(a)	to produce and distribute and to promote the production and distribution of films designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations:
(b)	to represent the government of Canada in its relations with persons engaged in commercial motion picture film activity in connection with motion picture films for the government or any department thereof;
(c)	to engage in research in film activity and to make available the results thereof to persons engaged in the production of films;

(d)	to advise the governor in council in connection with film activities; and
(e)	to discharge such other duties relating to film activities as the governor in council may direct it to undertake.
In addition to these purposes of the film board, subsection 1 of section 11 has a direct bearing, and it reads:
(1) Kxcept with the approval of the governor in council, no department shall initiate the production or processing of a motion picture film without the authority of the board, and the production and processing of all motion picture films by or for departments shall be undertaken by the board unless the board is of opinion that it is in the public interest that it be otherwise undertaken and authorizes it to be so undertaken.
In other words, if the two sections are read together, it becomes clear that the function of the board is primarily directed to advising the government on the production of films for government use, and it is contemplated of course that such films will not be produced otherwise than by the film board, without their concurrence.
The situation as I see it is this. The work of the film board has increased from year to year, and in the main it has been very good work, until last year when the number of films produced was of the order of 400. This is certainly an increase in work and involves some new departures. Of that number of 400 films, I have not the precise details as to how many were made for government departments or directly in connection with the work of government and how many originated with the film board itself. That raises two or three new questions, questions that never existed in the early work of the film board because of the nature of its work.
The first question is that of censorship. It is, I would think, obvious that in the field of film production, other than films produced for government departments in connection with work that comes within the orbit of federal authority under the British North America Act, the films are subject to provincial censorship. Before we embark on the erection of this building I should like to see some clarification of whether or not the government is going to be able to continue in that new field of production of films. If it is, what is the relationship with the provincial authorities in the field of censorship? That is a new problem or matter of policy that has to be settled with respect to the film board, and that did not arise or exist to any appreciable extent four years ago when the first preliminary steps were taken to acquire a site in Montreal for a new plant. That problem of course exists whether the film board is located in Ontario, Quebec or anywhere else. It is a problem that is going to affect the
Supply-National Film Board size of operation, and therefore in my view is a problem that will have to be dealt with as a preliminary to the construction of any building wherever located.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member
permit a question? What does he as a lawyer think of the authority or jurisdiction of a provincial government with respect to censorship of films of an organization of the federal government?


George James McIlraith: I would think they have no right at all of censorship of those films that have to do with other government activities that clearly are within the federal jurisdiction. Let me answer the hon. member for Prince Albert by taking an example. Assume that we are dealing with a film having to do with the work of the Department of Agriculture, or that part of it that is clearly within federal jurisdiction. I would think that such films would not be subject to censorship by the provinces. It is when you get into this other class of film that is not directly related to federal government activity that the difficulty arises. There is a whole field there that requires clarification, and I think that clarification should come before a building is constructed. Anyway, it is going to make a big difference whether the film board is operating on the scale of production of 400, 500 or 600 films a year or is back to the scale of 100 or 200 films a year, and that also applies to the type of building required.
As far as the building itself is concerned, judging from any information I have about the particular building, it is perfectly satisfactory to me. I have no objections to the type of building or anything related to it; but there is another matter that arises. It is claimed by some persons and by some national organizations that the government should go out of the film production business altogether, and that it should be returned to private enterprise. I for one do not subscribe to that view. To begin with, I do not think it would be possible to do so, even if the government so desired, because the private film industry in Canada could not undertake that work. Even if it were desirable, the private film industry is not sufficiently developed to undertake it.
There should be some determination as to what pattern is going to be followed with respect to the use of the private film industry in the production of film board films for the federal government. As far as I am aware, we have been given no statement of policy in that connection, and I would suggest that matter must be settled here by the govern-
2580	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board ment before we can determine whether or not we should proceed with this building.
As I say, I do not subscribe to the view that the film production for the government should be returned to private industry; but certainly I do subscribe to the view that that whole question is of such a nature that it must be examined, and the question of policy determined as to what type of production should go to private industry and to what extent it is possible for private industry to handle it.
There is another matter that bothers me about this move. The work of the film board is such that it is not easy for this house to examine its expenditures. This type of work is such that there is no easy formula that one can apply to determine whether they are using their money expenditures efficiently or not. No one can give me any formula that would be of much use in that connection. I raise that for this reason. It is going to be a continuing government expenditure on a larger scale, I would think, as the years go by. My view is that it is desirable that such an activity of government should be under the control of government where it can be very easily watched, not only by hon. members, but by the ministers concerned.
In that connection it is rather interesting to notice the activities of government that have been started in other cities and brought back to Ottawa in the last few years. I can refer to two of them. One was Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. This corporation by its nature carried on operations very much like a commercial business and it was decided to bring the administrative head office to Ottawa from Toronto. Then there was another activity of the government which was purely commercial. I refer to the disposal of surplus war materials by War Assets Corporation. This corporation was moved to Ottawa from Montreal.
If it was thought necessary or desirable in controlling these types of commercial activity to bring these companies back to Ottawa, I suggest respectfully that it is just that much more desirable that the activities of the film board be kept here. But there is another thing. The nature of the work of the film board is such that I do not think it is proper to describe it as a commercial activity. As a matter of fact I have not found any adequate way to describe it.
The work of the film board has to do with the interpreting of Canada to Canadians and to other nations. That is found in the


first subsection of the act defining the purposes of the board. It has to do with the expression of the cultural aspirations of the Canadian people in a collective way. When you get to a matter of that sort it becomes a question of some delicacy. You are dealing with the medium of expression of the culture of the Canadian people, one part of the country to another and the whole of the country to other parts of the world.
Perhaps it would be well for us in committee today to recall the struggle in the development of the nationhood of this country. At the time of the Act of Union, and after, there was a struggle to find some common ground where there could be a meeting together of the people in the capital of their country. We recall the long history of the period when the capital was in Toronto, in Kingston, in Montreal, in Quebec and in Hamilton at one point. There was constant trouble, a constant feeling of division, constant dissatisfaction.
Ottawa was later chosen as the capital of the country. I am not one who asserts that that is wholly satisfactory to all Canadians, but I do suggest respectfully that that choice has made possible the development of a feeling of Canadianism to a very great degree. Canadian citizens generally have come to look on this choice of the site of their capital, on the river at the boundaries of the two older provinces, as being a satisfactory one, as being one which they felt they could accept fully.
I venture the opinion now that if you were to go among those little groups-I believe they are called film societies- throughout the rural sections of this country and ask them about this move and discuss it, you would find they all felt that Ottawa was and should be the location of any centre that was to express their national culture, any centre that was to typify the expression of their national culture and they would want a medium such as this film board kept in their capital city and not sent to any other part of the country. It is here that they feel they can unite in that feeling and not elsewhere in the country, however attractive and desirable other parts of the country would be to any one of them.
I am one who has a rather strong feeling, which I think is shared by other hon. members in this house, about the rapid development of the sense of Canadian citizenship. This has gone on at a tremendously accelerated pace during the last fifteen years. I would hate to see anything done that would

tend to separate any of us from that feeling and from the feeling that in our capital we have achieved a centre where that feeling can find its expression.
There is a danger in an activity like this, where you are dealing with the creative arts and the cultural feelings of the people, in moving it away, that you will lose something of value in the expressing and fostering and developing of a feeling of Canadian citizenship.
There are perhaps other things that could be said. It may be unfortunate that this move became a reality when parliament was not sitting. That cannot be helped, as it was in the ordinary course of events; but it is unfortunate in that much misinformation was spread about. Many things were said which in my view ought not to have been said. They were not accurate and did not deal with the merits of the suggested change of site.
By the way as far as the actual site chosen in Montreal is concerned, I have no quarrel with it. I think probably the Department of Public Works showed shrewd judgment of land values when they acquired the site they did. I am told that the site is quite a valuable piece of property. As far as I am concerned, I have no criticism to offer in that regard.
My criticism centres on the one point. I do not think sufficient preliminary matters were decided to warrant any decision as to whether or not the film board should be moved. It may well be that after these other matters are considered and decided the film board ought to be moved out of Ottawa; but I for one cannot see the possibility of that, although, as I say, it may well be so.
My view is that even at this late date the government should consider these other matters of policy in relation to the whole operation of the board and have those matters of policy announced and dealt with before this building is proceeded with. I know it is possible to say with correctness that an item covering the acquisition of the land appeared in the estimates some years ago. I know we can all be criticized somewhat for not sharply taking issue at that point. My own view was that I did not think the move was imminent, and I think if I checked Hansard I could show justification for taking that view. In any event, whether or not that is the case, I suggest it is irrelevant.
The contractor dealing with this particular contract is perfectly reputable, and I would respectfully ask the government to withhold the work, at the risk of having to pay some 83276-164
Supply-National Film Board damages to the contractor until these other matters affecting the wisdom of moving the national film board away from the capital city are determined and settled.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I deferred my remarks in regard to this subject, which I have raised on a number of occasions, because I thought the Minister of Public Works might be supplementing the remarks already made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
However, I assume from the fact that he has not done so that he leaves the matter where it rests with the statement given to us by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
A great deal more is involved in the discussion of this item than the authority of the film board, the policies to be followed in the production of future films, the type of building to be erected, the location or any of the other subjects which have been raised. The most important issue before this house at the moment is the responsibility of parliament itself.
It has been said that one of the unfortunate facts was that this decision had not been reached when parliament was sitting. But it was. A decision was reached while we were sitting here. A decision was reached within the past few weeks, after we had been assured by the Prime Minister that a decision would not be reached until the house had had an opportunity to consider this item. For that reason there should be no hesitation on the part of the government in announcing without any reservation that this contract will stand, and will not be proceeded with until the house has the information which has never been presented to it, and until members of parliament have an opportunity to express some opinion in regard to the information which is not yet available.
The wisdom of erecting a building in Ottawa, in Ville St. Laurent or at any other point in Canada, is not the primary issue under discussion. The fact is that no member of this parliament, except perhaps the Minister of Public Works, has yet before him or her any information upon which to pass judgment. If the Minister of Public Works has such information, then it is a well guarded secret.
This is not parliamentary procedure. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has reviewed certain features of this subject with which I would like to deal briefly. I wish to refer to them because I do want to dispose

Supply-National Film. Board of some of the suggestions which have been made as to the point of view from which this subject is being approached.
The minister has said that the film board has been doing an excellent job. I have heard no suggestion to the contrary. It happens that I am one of the many enthusiasts who have for some time followed the hobby of both taking and showing moving picture films. I have shown many films produced by the national film board on a projector which has given me a great deal of pleasure in my own house. I can speak with some measure of personal experience about the films produced by the film board, and I am in a position to compare them because the projector I own happens to be able to handle either sound or stills, and I have shown films produced in different parts of the world as well as in different parts of this continent.
The films which I have shown, and which others have seen with pleasure, are excellent productions. I mention that only to remove right away from consideration in this discussion any suggestion that the views I may put forward relate to the quality of the production.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration also referred to the suggestion that the board should discontinue the production of films. Let me dispose of that at the outset. I have never made that suggestion. I am convinced that there are many fields of specialized production in which it is essential that we have films produced under the supervision of a government agency. I am not sure that remark applies to many of the films that are being produced, in spite of the generally excellent quality of most of the films.
There are two fields where it is of special service to the country and to our people to have productions of this kind available, namely, in the field of education and in the field of national defence. There is an old Chinese maxim that one picture tells more than ten thousand words. I am convinced that we have not yet even touched the possibility of the moving picture with sound for educational purposes.
I have seen films used for educational purposes in a way which convinces me that we could extend their use far beyond anything that has yet been attempted. For example, take the teaching of a subject such as physics. It would be possible to show the operations of an internal combustion engine, a jet engine, or anything of that kind in a cut model where the operation could be simplified by slow motion photography in a way that would not


have been possible with any model which could readily become available in any physics classroom in this country.
It is possible to teach history by means of the moving picture film in a way that cannot easily be approached in the junior classes by any textbook, no matter how readable or how well illustrated it may be. It is possible to use film for teaching languages in a way that we have not employed it, to show not only the way in which the sounds are formed but certain well-recognized principles with regard to the projection of the human voice and the actual use of words themselves in a manner that is more interesting to the pupil when those words come from someone whose name is well known to him. When the living history of this time can be portrayed in the classroom in the words of men like Churchill, Roosevelt and others of the present and recent generation, we can see the possibilities of attracting our young people to the use of language in a way that has not yet been possible.
In the teaching of language in this country film would be of immense value. We still have a long way to go in teaching French in the English-speaking parts of Canada and in teaching English in the French-speaking parts of Canada. This is one of the aids that can come to the help of teachers and which can be of great value in that field. I can see there a great public service in the production of films of a type that possibly could not be produced satisfactorily on a strictly commercial basis.
Then there is the question of national defence. We learned how much importance the government attaches to films produced for national defence purposes when we were informed within the last two years of the suspension of the activities of the national film board in producing films for national defence purposes because of the uncertainty of the government about some security risks within the board. Whether that was a wise or unwise decision is still unknown to members on this side of the house because we only have the statement of the government as to the course it followed. Nevertheless this did place dramatic emphasis upon the importance the government attaches to films produced for national defence purposes.
There again we have not even started to explore the possibilities of instruction by films of this kind. We have produced a number of films. We could go far beyond anything that has yet been attempted, with great economy in the money devoted to teaching because of the amount that would be saved through placing this medium of instruction in the

hands of members of the units themselves who could give instruction with films of this kind.
In the Royal Canadian Air Force, the artillery, the infantry, the tank corps, the armoured forces, the medical services, the engineers, in the navy with all its new ramifications of defensive as well as offensive equipment, in every branch of the services, there is a tremendous field scarcely yet explored. All this imposes certain conditions before a decision can be reached as to what should be done.
When we come to the matter of censorship, which was mentioned, surely there can be no question but that censorship would apply with equal force to films produced by the dominion government as to those produced by any other agency. I cannot believe for a moment that the suggestion would be made that censorship could be circumvented in the showing of films in any theatre simply by virtue of the fact that they were produced by an agency of the dominion government.


George James McIlraith: That was not my suggestion.


George Alexander Drew: I was about to say that I felt sure that was not the suggestion. Nevertheless that could become a very real question if the activities were extended to a point where a considerable number of films produced by the national film board were being shown in those places where provincial censorship would ordinarily apply. This makes it obvious that here is another consideration which needs to be resolved before a final decision can be made as to what should be done with regard to this subject.
I have put these matters forward merely to indicate how many things there are that we should know before any single member of the house is in a position to say that $1 million, $5 million, $10 million or $1 should be expended. Surely if we are to justify the high estimate of the responsibility of members which has been asserted on a number of occasions within the past few weeks we should exhibit it on this occasion, when this matter comes before us for the very first time. When it comes before us, may I repeat, for the very first time, when this is the first opportunity that has been presented to discuss the question with knowledge of the facts, every one of us should insist that we know what are the facts upon which this decision has been made, that we know what is the authority of the film board, and that we know what is now the stated policy of the government with respect to the production of films in this building when it is constructed.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said the real purpose in constructing this
83276-164J
ouppiy-Manorial Film Board new building at the moment is so the activities of the national film board can be housed in one building. He then went on to say that a decision of policy was involved, in that there was to be a continued operation of this board. Mr. Chairman, it involves a great deal more than that. It involves a decision of policy by the government not only that there is to be continued operation of the film board but also involves, surely, a decision of policy as to what the scope of the activities of the film board will be and the nature of the production, with respect to which the government made a decision without consulting parliament as to the location of the building.
It may well be that there are many good and sound reasons for selecting the site that has been chosen. If there are, then let us have them. If there are, then let us all agree that if we are to accept our responsibilities as members of parliament in deciding on this item we must know these reasons before we approve an item that carries with it this major decision.
It involves also some understanding of the alance of consideration, remembering that neither the Massey commission, the group of experts known as J. D. Woods and Gordon nor the national film board committee of this house that reported in 1952 made any suggestion that there should be a change in the location of the building. Therefore we must go entirely outside of the evidence before the Massey commission and the decisions of the Massey commission; we must go entirely beyond the report of J. D. Woods and Gordon-we must go beyond the report of the national fihn board committee of this house in 1952, to find the reason for this decision.


Mr. Winters:: It was stated in the proceedings of that committee.


George Alexander Drew: But not in the report, because the report quite clearly relates to the construction of a building which, so far as there is any evidence, was regarded as one that would likely be constructed in Ottawa.


Robert Henry Winters: It is clear in the proceedings.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, Mr. Chairman, there are many things m the proceedings, but what I am dealing with are the matters that were presented to this house for consideration The matters that were presented to this house for consideration make no suggestion of that kind. We must have some other evidence if we are to reach a decision which even remotely suggests that we are accepting our responsibilities as members of this house.
Nor is it alone the location of this building which is of great importance. Exactly what type of building is required? In order
2584	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board to form any judgment on that part we must know what the policy is concerning the scope of activities, the expected production and the expected employment level of the national film board. There are some other considerations about which we should know. Today, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of film production is well aware, there is no operation more sensitive to sound. Even the technical handling of television is not so dependent upon the elimination of extraneous sound, because any sound reaching the recording equipment during film production will be permanently recorded.
Let no one suggest that we are in a position to pass judgment as to whether or not that has been dealt with. We have not had a word on this subject from the government as yet. In deciding where a national film board building is to be established we certainly should be told what consideration has been given to the sound factors, particularly having regard to the well known impact on film of the highly reproductive, high-pitched screech of a jet motor. This is another question about which we should have some information, and the government has not told us anything about it.
At this time it must be quite clear that we should have a statement of the terms of reference under which the film board is to operate, and the instructions the film board has received as to the scope of its activities, A question has been raised already as to the need for a statement of policy as to whether production is to be in the nature of 100, 400 or 500 films. This would be determined by the field of activity contemplated by the government. What we need, and need greatly, if there is to be an understanding of this problem is a clarification of the government's decision concerning the real function of the national film board.
The truth is, and I do not think for one moment any member of the government would deny it, that this board has grown up like Topsy. Probably in many cases the person who was most surprised by the nature of the activities of the film board was the minister who was responsible for that board. Every now and then the minister would see a film and say, "Well, this is better than I thought." On another occasion the minister might say, with some measure of surprise, he had not known the field was covered to that extent.


Robert Henry Winters: To which minister are you referring?


George Alexander Drew: I hope it would include most of the ministers, but I am certain it applies to the present Minister of Public Works.


Robert Henry Winters: I just wanted to know which ones.


George Alexander Drew: I shall be quite prepared to let my remarks apply to the minister now responsible.


Walter Edward Harris: You would not want me to make the obvious retort?


George Alexander Drew: If my hon. friend means that the minister who spoke on behalf of the Minister of Public Works is in the same position, I certainly would think that is the obvious retort, because I am quite sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was greatly surprised at some of the films that he found had actually been produced. Perhaps he shared with some of the rest of us a great measure of satisfaction, surprised satisfaction on some occasions, as to the nature of the films that were produced. None of us received any information in this house to give us the slightest idea of what films were being produced, beyond the general statements that were made.
When I say that, I recognize that there is an excellent index of the films produced by the film board. I do not expect I will hear from either the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or any other minister that they have seen all these films. I have not, and I do not think any of the other hon. members have. It would take a very long time to see them all. I am not suggesting the ministers have a duty to do that. I do suggest, however, there should be some procedure by which there would be supervision of the films produced within such terms of reference and such declarations of policy as may be announced to this house for the first time by this government. I say "for the first time", because any declaration of policy in the past has been in such general terms that it never defined the real scope of the activities of this board.
Now I want to point out why it is so necessary that we get complete information in this occasion. The subject matter was discussed earlier this year, and is recorded in Hansard of January 19. I shall again place on the record what was said on that occasion, so that it may be contained in the context of the remarks I make at this time. I asked the Prime Minister this question:
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether press reports appearing during the last twenty-four hours respecting the national film hoard are correct and if the

government does intend to reconsider its decision to move the national film board from Ottawa? At the same time I would ask whether there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter if this is so.
To this the Prime Minister replied:
There has been no decision reached in that matter.
That was on January 19.


Robert Henry Winters: Of this year?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, January 19, 1954. The
Prime Minister said:
There has been no decision reached in that matter. What is under consideration at the present time is the tenders that were submitted for the construction of a building in Montreal. They are all of a very substantial amount, and the matter that is now under consideration is as to whether or not the government will recommend the appropriations required for that large expenditure at this time.
Then I said:
Do I understand from what the Prime Minister has said that, having regard to the amount involved, the government may actually be reconsidering whether it will or will not move the national film board from Ottawa?
To that the Prime Minister replied:
No decision has been reached in that regard, but until the government comes to parliament with a definite recommendation for a definite amount to be expended for a building at a definite place there is always a possibility that changes in the recommendation may be made.
Now, it is upon that completely unqualified assurance by the Prime Minister that I base my request-I shall go further; that I base my demand, and a justified demand-that the Minister of Public Works state unequivocally that everything will be suspended in relation to this contract until parliament has heard the reasons, and until there has been an opportunity to consider those reasons.


Walter Edward Harris: Would the hon. member permit an interruption? I do not want to interrupt the hon. member's speech at any length, but I understand that while I was out of the house he made mention of what he has now read as being an assurance by the Prime Minister that no decision about this whole matter would be made until the house had had an opportunity to pass upon it. I am sure if he will reread what he has just read-


George Alexander Drew: I can answer that right now. I made no reference to it either directly or indirectly until this present reference. Therefore I propose to proceed with these remarks.


Walter Edward Harris: Very well. But I hope my hon. friend is not reading what he has now read as a statement by the Prime Minister that there had not been at one time a recommendation to the house for the construction of this building in Montreal.
Supply-National Film. Board


George Alexander Drew: Xvlr. Chairman, I am going to deal with that, because it is the most preposterous suggestion I have heard yet-that is, the suggestion that this house had any information will be answered by a reference to what came before the house on the earlier occasion which the hon. member mentions. And it is really the gem of gems to indicate the complete irresponsibility of the government in relation to parliament. I intend to refer to it. But at this time I wish to go one stage further to emphasize that there is no doubt about the Prime Minister's words, and that there was going to be a chance to reconsider this. Let me read what happened.


Walter Edward Harris: Well-


George Alexander Drew: The minister will have plenty of chance to deal with this matter. Let me read what happened on the following day, as recorded in Hansard for January 20, upon which occasion I raised a question of privilege:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to a statement made to the house yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Yesterday afternoon, in response to a question, the Prime Minister made the statement that the question of the removal of the national film board remained an open one until some definite item would be brought before the house.
And may I interject here that if the Prime Minister had any question about the accuracy of the statement I have just referred to, that was the time for him to state it. Then I continued:
Then in the late afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal I read that the definite recommendation in regard to the adoption of a tender for the construction of the national film board building was definitely going to the treasury board. It seems to me that these statements are inconsistent. Having regard to the general principle involved and the assurance by the Prime Minister that we would have something before us before this move was definite, it seems to me that we should know what the situation is.
To that the Prime Minister replied, not that there had been no assurance, but rather that he hoped the house would rely upon his statement instead of a press statement. This is what he said:
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the house would take the statements made by the government in the house in preference to speculative reports by newspapers.
The fact is that those words are clear and unequivocal; they are clear and understandable; they are clear and definite. It was quite certain from those words that every member in the house who heard them had a right to expect that we would have this item before us before any decision was made in regard to those tenders.

Private Bills
Nevertheless it turned out that, contrary to the information received from the Prime Minister, the subject was under consideration and a decision was made by the government to proceed with tenders. The tender was awarded to a company in Toronto. This company has been given the contract to go to Montreal and construct this building there.
That also is something about which I would like to have information before this item is disposed of. I want to know who the contractors were who bid, the amount of the tenders, the bond that has been called for, and the previous experience in a specialized line of construction of this type that was insisted upon in calling for tenders. After all, these buildings are very intricate. They are buildings of a highly technical type, and I want to know the extent to which assurance was secured that the tenders were upon a basis that left no doubt that the tenderer was highly qualified in this particular and unusual field of construction.


The Chairman:: Order; it being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 296, respecting Brazilian Telephone Company.-Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on the order paper. Is it agreed that these be entertained in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not need a motion to go into committee of the whole.



DOROTHY ANN STUART STORY MCKENNA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 178, for the relief of Dorothy Ann Stuart Story McKenna-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since you have just said that the house is in committee on certain divorce bills I gather that you are calling clause 1 of all 113 bills that are now before us. I shall not take the time of the committee to give too much in the way of statistics, but if we pass these 113 bills, along with the 140 that we passed some time ago, it will make a total of 253 divorce bills which we shall have passed in this house so far this session. My records indicate that we shall have spent about six minutes on the 253 divorces. That is at the rate of 1J seconds a divorce.
[Mr. Drew.)
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, there is a point that interests me and concerns me a bit. I note that standing order 112-it is a lengthy one, and I shall not read it all- reads in part as follows:
The chairman of the committee-
That, I take it, is yourself in this instance. -shall sign with his name at length a printed copy of the bill, and shall also sign with the initials of his name, the preamble and the various sections of the bill as they are agreed to.
It seems to me that the language of that standing order is pretty clear. You have called clause 1 of 113 bills. It looks to me as though we are going to have to wait until you have signed with your initials clause 1 of all 113 bills before we can go on to clause 2, because that is what the standing order says:
The chairman . . . shall sign with the initials of his name, the preamble and the various sections of the bill as they are agreed to.
I should like to know how it is possible for you, sir, to sign your initials to clause 1 of 113 bills in the instant it takes for the committee to say "carried".


William Alfred Robinson: Order. If the hon. member will look at standing order 110 he will see:
All private bills reported to the house by any committee may, on one motion, be referred together to a committee of the whole house and such committee may consider and report one or more such bills at the same sitting.
I have called a number of divorce bills, Nos. 178 to 197, inclusive, and Nos. 199 to 249, inclusive, and Nos. 253 to 294, inclusive. I have before me the first one, namely No. 178, and if we are to give any effect to the expeditious procedure opened up by standing order 110 it seems to me that it would be only practical for me to sign, as I have done in the past, the first clause of the first bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But may I point out, Mr. Chairman, that standing order 110 does not set aside standing order 112. I have no quarrel with the committee having taken all of the bills at once in pursuance of a right that is provided by standing order 110. It seems to me that standing order 112 raises a different question, namely that the chairman shall sign with the initials of his name the various sections of the bill as they are agreed to. At least, Mr. Chairman, you have my sympathy if you are going to sign your initials 113 times before we get to clause 2 of these bills.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you got them all
signed, sir?


Mr. Stick:: He has a rubber stamp.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the bills?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are they all signed?


William Alfred Robinson: I assure the hon. member that Bill No. 178 is duly signed, and all the others will be signed before they are remitted to the Clerk, in accordance with past practice.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Joyce Tulloch Foley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Ruth Annie Ricketts Perrett.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Elizabeth Harriet Wyburd Ramseger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Warma Wil-helmiina Rantasalmi Wirtanen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Ruth May Rowley Grundy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Rodney David Themens.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Patricia Mackell Wilson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Joseph Aurele Denault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Arthur Ryan.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Mary Clenman Bernard, otherwise known as May Clenman Bernard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Lloyd Demont Noseworthy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Douglas Charles Fortune.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Kenneth George Wright.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Sonia Rofman Bailis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Bessie Livshitz Rudy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Monika Emilija Kasputyte Janauskas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Suzanne Marie-Therese Gens La France.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Noella Cooker Prince.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Rupert Evans Joyce.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Lois Helen Kutzman Caplan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Fernand Constant Daemen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Mary Kazy-merchyk Senyck.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Rosalie Hetty Arbess Sofin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Lucille Lafor-tune Wilson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Wilfrid Cote.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Janca Fani Poliak Schlesinger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Sadie Marie Ansingh Grosheintz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Douglas Morrison Meldrum.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Alec Lenetsky. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Dorothy Lilian Asbury Davies.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Nicholas Krauchuke.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Esther Kohn Rosner.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Marguerite Jazzar Nassar.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Leona Bobby Denberg Wiseman, otherwise known as Leona Bobby Denberg White.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Marianne Roos Axelrad.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Margaret Jaunzen Dishler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Pearl Witzling Socolow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Jennie Chun Readman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Gizella Szabo Herczeg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Lilija Hedviga Treimane Jursevskis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of John Richard Maher.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Elizabeth McDonald Jones Roy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Claire Viola Frechette Ainsworth.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Margaret Reta Dodge Parsons.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Estella Cluett Jensen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Angelina Natale Beaucaire.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Dorothy Miller Osborough Davidson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Marie Rose Gisele Houde Dionne.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Olga Pscheidt Arsenault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Edward Robinson Harris.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Cathrine Pieternelle Wytenbroek Knight.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Anton Bliziffer.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Theodore Rolfsmeyer von Berzeviczy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Agnes Broo Hammond Bailey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	234,	for	the	relief	of	Emma
Antoinette Rachel Lauzon McDuff.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Idella Adeline Sharpe Cutler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	236,	for	the	relief	of	Walter
Leonard Woodward.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	237,	for	the	relief	of	Marion
Shirley Barsky Burg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Florence Elene Thom Ward.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of William Jean Paul Powroz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Lewis Swailes. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	241,	for	the	relief	of	Shirley
Goodlin Myrovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Germaine Lafond Joyal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Kenneth Charles Overbury.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Hazel Emily Louise Hunter Naud.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Pearl Agnes Harding Potvin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	246,	for	the	relief	of	Samuel
Goldberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	247,	for	the	relief	of	Nancy
Elizabeth Borden Sise.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	248,	for	the	relief	of	Audrey
Madeline Crothers Walklate.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Joyce Gowrie Kimber Kendler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	253,	for	the	relief	of	Gloria
Alphonsine Timmins Ferguson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Adella Alice McNeil Slobosky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Vera Marguerite Hennigar Isenring.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Sylvia Golbas Lann.-Mr. Hunter.
[The Chairman.]
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Lucy Jane Cole Judd.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Walter Hardy Willows.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Elizabeth Temple Jamieson Grier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Herbert William Bateman-Cooke.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Rita Ann Rennie Knight.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Mavis Josephine Green Jackson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Henriette Duffy Cote.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Jaroslav Jan-dera.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Robert Alfred Denman Stencel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Madeleine Forcier Mi dock.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Annie Bray Hodgson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Joseph Kovecses.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Winifred Margery Taken Dillen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Hilda Foster Mills Henderson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Evelyn Beatrice Diggon Ferguson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Hellon May Dreany English.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of lone Larson Morris.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Marie Laurette Carmen Gamache Desmarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Louise Grant Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Evelyn Maud Nash Wyse.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Anita Felton Corbeil.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Sonia Lippman Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Margaret Stuart Peniston Rex.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Phyllis Adair Barker Smith.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Elizabeth Louise Emmett Lightbody.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Madeleine Victoria Coussement Rolland.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Julia Frances Finn Radcliffe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Eileen Theresa Burgess Cowan.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 285, for the relief of Christina Emmanuel Papadakis Banks.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Grace Connolly Houde.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Marion Elizabeth Davis Esson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Morris Goldsmith.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Edith Marie Treleaven Younkie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Irene Dorothy Haselden Munn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Margaret Hosie Black Kirk.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Irene Bertha Kirkpatrick Faubert dit Masson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Marie Charlotte Yvonne Gisele Giguere Larocque.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Albert Pigeon. -Mr. Hunter.

George James McIlraith: the second reading of Bill No. 313, respecting the Dominion Fire Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for changing the name of the Dominion Fire Insurance Company. This company was incorporated in 1904 and carried on its business as a fire insurance company. It has enlarged that business from time to time until now the insurance business carried on by it includes fire insurance, bonds, burglary, liability, plate glass insurance, automobile insurance, and automobile accident insurance. It was desired to delete the word "fire" from the name of the company.
When the bill in that form came before the other place some objection was taken to the similarity of the name, with that deletion, to the name of the Dominion Life Insurance Company. The objection was overcome by making a further change in the name, by substituting the word "corporation" for the word "company", so that the bill now before this house, and the bill as passed by the other place, is to change the name to the Dominion Insurance Corporation.
The only other company having a similar name, and which might object to the duplication of names, is the Dominion Life Insurance Company, and that company now agrees. There is no objection to the name being submitted to this house in its present form.


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


George James McIlraith: Yes.
Industrial Status of Women


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said this company has been doing many other lines of business apart from fire insurance. Are we to take it that the right to deal in these other lines was contained in the original charter?


George James McIlraith: They are contained in other legislation which was passed long since. The bill now before the house has nothing to do with the rights of the company to do business, it merely has to do with the name the company shall use. As I say, the rights were granted by earlier legislation.


Mr. Adamson:: No abjection will be taken to the term "dominion", I take it?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide equal pay for equal work for women.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity of presenting this legislation for the consideration of parliament. This is a measure to prevent discrimination against women in respect of their employment by reason of their sex and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to ensure that women will be paid at the same rates as men for similar or comparable work.
There are many points which might be enumerated as one studies more and more the ramifications of this type of legislation. Since world war I the use of women in industry and commerce, in many instances in so-called men's jobs, has become more and more commonplace. In the factory, in the office, in the school and in the home women are performing work of a comparable character to that performed by men. Where it was thought at one time that the utilization of women in the labour force was a matter of passing interest it has now become apparent that they are needed in a rapidly expanding economy. As working conditions have improved for all workers the classifications which were regarded as strictly male have gradually diminished in number. This is true in industry, and I suppose it is far truer in clerical, executive and professional jobs.
The principle of equal pay for equal work is one which has been espoused by trade unions, industrial organizations and the like for many years, but there are a great many workers in all lines of activity who do not
2590	HOUSE OF
Industrial Status of Women enjoy the protection .or bargaining advantages of union membership. It is partly because of these workers that it is advisable to have legislation enacted by the government under whose jurisdiction they come.
Three years ago such legislation was enacted in Ontario. Last year Saskatchewan brought a similar law into effect. British Columbia adopted equal pay legislation last year, which came into force on January 1 of this year. Provincial laws cover most of the workers of this country, but there are still a number of employees who because of the nature of their employment or the districts in which they reside come under federal jurisdiction. It is to cover those workers that I have introduced this bill.
I might say that a great deal of the opposition which formerly greeted such legislation has disappeared in the light of increasing knowledge that such legislation benefits men as well as women. Some of the main points which must be considered are that women represent the nation's greatest labour reserve. It is from their ranks that additional workers must be drawn in the event of the need for the rapid acceleration of defence production, for instance. This type of legislation would facilitate their recruitment.
From the standpoint of the women themselves, it is a matter of simple justice. It ensures that women workers will receive what they are entitled to receive for the work they do. Those women who are housewives and mothers also have an interest in this type of legislation because it protects them and their children in that it protects the wages of their husbands.
Equal pay affords to men greater wage and job security. It protects them from the exploitation of employers who would hire women for less money or who would replace men workers with women workers at lower rates.
Equal pay legislation is also a protection to the employers, who are thus protected from the unfair competition of those who would attempt to use women to undercut men's wages. Studies which have been made on this subject are great in number and voluminous in character. I have here a publication of the department of labour in the United States which came out recently. The introduction states in part:
Women's present status provides freedom to participate in a broad range of activities almost unknown to the woman of fifty years ago. The import of this freedom can be fully understood only by realizing that its foundations rest not alone in the vast achievements of the movement for women's rights, but in the complexities of a changing social and economic order with its revolutionizing effects upon home and work life.


It is true that the last 50 years have seen many changes. There has been a decided trend toward what you might call urbanization. As the urban sections of our land have grown in size, living accommodation has become more and more restricted. Several families now occupy the space formerly occupied by one family. This has had its effect on domestic staffs. It is very hard to say which came first, the chicken or the egg, whether the lack of domestic help during the period of the first world war forced people with large homes to cut down the space they occupied and thus make it easier for the woman of the house to handle her own housework, or whether the women themselves, wishing to be free of the extra responsibility of large homes and the management of domestic staffs, purposely cut down on those staffs which then were left free to find their way into other than domestic work. Whatever the cause, certainly a great change has taken place in the last 50 years.
Women were released more and more from the domestic responsibilities which were at one time accepted as their main work, and found their way into many types of activity. They went into organizational work, into church work, into club work, into patriotic, religious and social work. As they became more and more interested in these organizations they also became more and more interested in the world which lay outside their own homes. I think the great interest which is taken today by parents generally in associations connected with education is proof of the extent to which women have found that a participation in community affairs has a direct effect upon their own manner of living and upon the advantages which are made available not only to them but to their children.
Be that as it may, it is true that as time went on women who had more freedom, who had more time on their hands, gradually found their way into both industrial and commercial work. There is no doubt at all that this situation came about largely due to the demands which were made upon them in the two world wars through which we have come in the last 50 years; but having once taken their place in the industrial, commercial, and professional life of this country they were loath to relinquish that place, and indeed industry, commerce, and the professions were loath to see them go back to their homes and leave the positions which they had filled with such efficiency and poise all those years.

I recall young women whom I knew during the last world war who were doing jobs which formerly would have been completely foreign to a woman. For example, I remember a couple of young women I knew who were operating huge cranes in the steel plant in Hamilton, and certainly that is the type of work which at one time would have been thought to be entirely within the field of male employment. Nevertheless they did that job and did it well. It is true, as this book states:
They have indeed been both "pushed" and "pulled" out of an area of activity once circumscribed by the household-"pushed" by the lesser requirements upon their time and interest by the withdrawal from the home of many productive activities, and "pulled" by expanding opportunities and the demands for income in an economy of ever-increasing living standards.
I believe it is true to say, Mr. Speaker, that as living standards have progressed the desire of all homemakers has been for an even higher standard of living which could not be attained on the wages of one single worker in the home. It is true, as this book goes on to say, that both men and women are victims of tradition and prejudice, and both are affected by what Mildred Thompson, until recently dean of Vassar College, describes as a "mode of thinking which has not caught up with the actual conditions of our times."
The basic reason for this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not to protect the woman who is a rare case. It is not to make sure that some individual or group of individuals shall benefit under this legislation. Rather it is simply to protect the great rank and file of women workers, many of whom have no bargaining agents, who have no one to speak for them and to produce and maintain a bargaining procedure through which they can obtain the advantages they desire, and also abolish the discrimination under which they work at the present time.
Recent years have witnessed a rapid growth in employment. The latest census figures show that as of October 24, 1953, the labour force numbered 5,357,000 of which 4,166,000 or 77-8 per cent were men and 1,185,000 or 22-2 per cent were women. The figure has been running at around 23 per cent of the labour force for a number of years. As a matter of fact in 1949 it was 23-5 per cent, and according to the monthly bulletin of employment and payrolls the latest figures for December, 1953, show an increase from November to December of from 222 per thousand to 227 per thousand, which brings it back to about the 23 per cent figure.
Of those women who were thus gainfully employed well over half have made their 83276-165i
Industrial Status of Women income tax returns for the year 1950 and, according to the taxation statistics for 1952, practically half a million of them were single with no dependents, about 24,000 were married with no dependents, and about 27,500 both single and married had to support dependents ranging from one to five. It is interesting to note that some of these women have been supporting more than five dependents. This substantial number of people represents quite a considerable portion of the labour force of this country, many of whom have been suffering discrimination by reason of a wage differential from the beginning of time.
I think at this stage we might well have a look at the history of equal remuneration legislation in many other parts of the world. As long ago as 1919 the constitution of the international labour organization proclaimed the "special and urgent importance" of "the principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value." That principle was enunciated in article 41. Then in 1948 when the constitution of ILO was amended the preamble proclaimed that "improvement (of conditions of labour) is urgently required by recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value."
The first country to establish the principle of equal pay by constitutional provisions was Mexico in 1917; and since that time, according to the report of the committee of the thirty-third session of the international labour conference-which was the last report containing this information-16 other countries have adopted equal pay legislation. In addition, two states in Germany have also adopted it.
In the United States of America 13 states and the territory of Alaska have enacted equal pay laws. In Canada, as I previously mentioned, three provinces have adopted equal pay legislation. It was adopted in Ontario in March, 1951, and it came into force on January 1, 1952. In Saskatchewan legislation was enacted on April 4, 1952, and it came into force on January 1, 1953. In British Columbia it was enacted in 1953 and came into force on January 1, 1954. This would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a growing recognition of the justice of such legislation and an increasing willingness to accept the principle and give it legal status in many countries in the world. It has already been recognized and accepted right here on the North American continent both in the United States and in Canada.
2592	HOUSE OF
Industrial Status of Women
At the thirty-third session of the ILO in 1950 the Canadian delegate, during a conference on equal pay remuneration, stated that the Canadian government was in favour of the principle and of its application to government employees, but would not be prepared to introduce legislation, giving as an excuse the difficulty of reconciling the two methods of application, that is, legal enactment and collective agreement.
As nearly as I can tell, for this reason the Canadian delegation supported the recommendation but not the convention. Throughout the consideration of the various points Canada sought to have the provisions watered down to a point where they would not necessarily be binding on the participating states. For instance, I find that in the consideration of point 4 Canada was successful in having the original wording changed so that instead of reading "each member to undertake to ensure application of the principle" it read "each member to take all practicable measures to encourage the application of the principle", and finally it was changed to read "to further, and in so far as this is in conformity with the above methods, to ensure application of the principle".
Considering that Canada wanted to take all practicable measures to encourage application of the principle, it would be interesting to know just what steps have been taken by the Canadian government in that direction since that time. I notice that at page 40 of the seventh report of the international labour conference on this subject Mr. Kaiser, who was the United States government delegate, said:
The experience of the United States showed that the principle could he accepted alike by workers and employers; that it could be translated into practice; and that its application protected established wage rates against undercutting.


Mr. Gregg:: May I ask the year of that report?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The one from which I have just quoted?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 1951. The convention subsequently adopted has been ratified to date by eight member states of the international labour organization.
There is some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in trying to present any measure in the short space of one hour, particularly when the sponsor desires to hear the opinions of other members and would like very much to hear a debate upon a subject in which she has a very real interest. In order to do that it is necessary to cut one's remarks to a minimum,
IMrs. Fairclough.]

and to depend upon being able to supplement them at some future date to the extent one would wish to do in the first instance.
Therefore I am not going to prolong my remarks, because I want to hear what the minister and other members of the house have to say upon this subject. But I should like to say that I notice that in the second portion of the fifth report of the international labour conference on this subject in 1950 the reply of the government of Canada was put in this way:
... it is recognized that for persons coming directly under government supervision there would be no difficulty in the application of the principle . . .
This bill covers only workers under federal jurisdiction. As I have sought to point out, the principle is accepted in practically every part of the world, although not necessarily in force in every part of the world. But even now it is the law in many lands, in numerous states of the United States of America and three provinces of Canada.
With these few remarks I recommend the measure to the house, and I urge its support.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) with great care. Like her, I am very anxious to hear the opinions that may be expressed by other members of the house as the debate proceeds. This year the hon. member has introduced exactly the same bill providing for equal pay for equal work for women which she proposed last year. It was placed on the order paper very early, and one day before Christmas, when I was trying to do my homework in my office on a quiet Saturday afternoon, I read her bill just after I had read an editorial in that great paper, the Ottawa Journal. The heading of the editorial was "Not to Start Something, But-" The first paragraph reads as follows:
We have it on the authority of a Toronto columnist, who says he gets it from "the latest scientific statistics" that "more and more males are being driven out of their minds as a direct result of attempting to argue with females".
Of course the reason more and more males are being driven out of their minds is the difficulty they have in finding answers to the good arguments of the ladies. That is the position in which I find myself this afternoon.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the minister will permit me, that statement has been made ever since Adam made his famous remark about the woman tempting him.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Be that as it may, I am sure there is greater force in that statement just

made by my hon. friend than in the one which
1	wrote down as she was speaking a while ago, namely "that discrimination on account of wage differential has been in existence since the beginning of time". That is quite a long spell. Anyway, I recognize fully that this is one of those many occasions in life when a mere man can talk himself into quite a lot of trouble, but I should like to take advantage of the opportunity to comment on what the hon. member said in introducing the bill.
She stated that women are needed in Canada in our rapidly expanding economy, and that is certainly perfectly true. During the last 25 years Canada, as well as the rest of the western world, has seen how women can occupy practically every occupational role that in former times was considered to be the prerogative of man. What I have said also applies to this house. It is a great satisfaction to me that an increasing number of women are taking their places in the houses of parliament.
I do not want to dwell on this matter long because, as my hon. friend has said, I think the bill will provide an opportunity for a free expression of opinion on all sides of the house. However, I should like to point out in the beginning that the government of Canada, and I am very glad to say so, has followed the equal pay principle for many years in respect of its employees. That applies to governments under both parties. Rates of pay in positions under our Canadian civil service are fixed in accordance with the content of the job and are the same whether the holder of the job is a man or a woman. After a fairly long period of experience, I believe it is looked upon as an efficient method, and of course the same principle holds true as far as the rewards of members of parliament are concerned.
The equal pay laws have been outlined quite fully by the sponsor of the bill. In the United States, as she has said, there is no federal legislation although bills have been introduced on quite a number of occasions during the past eight or ten years. The basic provision of Bill No. 2 now before us is the same as that contained in the bill which was introduced, but not passed, in the United States last year. I understand from press reports that Representative Bolton of Ohio intends to sponsor such a bill in the House of Representatives this spring.
In its provisions for enforcement Bill No.
2	follows the pattern of the three provincial laws in Canada, namely Ontario, Saskatchewan, and now British Columbia since December 31. These acts provide that a woman employee who claims she is not getting equal
Industrial Status of Women pay for equal work may file a complaint with an administrative authority. This authority has the responsibility of conferring with the employer and employee, and seeking to effect a settlement. In other words I think the key idea there is the complaint, and action normally is not expected unless a complaint is lodged. I am told that the experience so far has been that very few complaints have been filed.
In the United States where some state legislation seems to place a responsibility on an administrative authority to secure compliance with the law through inspection-the key idea there seems to be inspection rather than complaints-the authorities indicate that so far there has been very little activity. It can be readily seen, I think, that no government inspector can tell whether an equal pay law is being violated simply by examining the payrolls. It means going into the job content as well, and this is particularly true where the statute requires that there shall be equal pay for comparable work. Who is to say what is comparable work, even as between two men employees? Wherever collective bargaining is feasible, and I am going to admit right away that in collective bargaining as in other spheres, though woman is a potent force which we must never underestimate, nevertheless women do not appear to be numerous in the membership of our national labour organizations, particularly those coming under federal jurisdiction.
There has been some experience in Canada in approaching the problem from the point of view of collective bargaining. Some agreements contain equal pay clauses, and others simply carry out the principle of equal pay by establishing a rate for the job which is the same whether the job is done by a man or a woman. This is the practice followed by the federal civil service commission.
My department carried out a study not merely of those people coming under federal jurisdiction but of a sample group of 1,952 collective bargaining agreements covering 343,100 workers in manufacturing. About 20 per cent of the workers were found to be covered by agreements containing equal pay clauses. Only about 3 per cent were covered by agreement which provided for lower rates for women and boys in the same job classifications as men. Most agreements had no provisions either for wage differences based on sex or for equal pay.
Very little manufacturing is subject to federal jurisdiction, of course, but I mention this study simply to indicate that there is a practical way of getting at the problem through that channel. Collective bargaining
2594	HOUSE OF
Industrial Status of Women is feasible, and is the accepted method of determining wages and working conditions in a large part of the industries subject to federal jurisdiction. In Canada we have proceeded on the assumption that there should be labour legislation when it can help to create a favourable atmosphere for collective bargaining, and that then the parties concerned should work out an agreement which sets out the terms of employment. This is certainly one of the terms of employment.
The bill we have before us is designed to make it the duty of the federal government to instruct management to do certain things relating to job classifications and pay which have been hitherto regarded as factors in collective bargaining or which have not been considered at all. As a consequence, one could conceive of a demand for legislation that would make it the duty of the federal government to instruct labour unions to do certain things relating to job classification and pay, which hitherto have been regarded as factors in the collective bargaining field.
Having said that, I do not want to give the impression that no problem exists. It has been recognized as a problem by trade unions in this country, in that the major congresses have all adopted equal pay for equal work as part of their platform of principles and at their annual conventions have discussed ways of putting it into effect. I feel it is perhaps significant that this consideration is not complete, and as an indication of that fact I point out that the four great national labour organizations have now made their annual presentations to the government and, although they have many women in their membership, have not recommended that such a bill be passed within the federal jurisdiction. I feel it is probably equally significant that the national council of women, in making their recommendations to the government, did not mention this matter. The provincial federations of trade unions have, of course, on occasion asked the provincial governments to introduce equal pay legislation.
Before advocating federal legislation in this field I think I should like to know that a specific problem existed in the industries coming within federal jurisdiction, and that it was serious enough to warrant intervention. I would want to feel that the problem appeared capable of being remedied by law. So far I do not think there has been enough evidence of such a specific problem or of the fact that this is the remedy for it.
I must say that I noted the extracts which the hon. member quoted from the statements of the Canadian representative at ILO, which


intimated no difficulty was seen in applying the principle within federal jurisdiction. I think it should be added that I am not sure there would not be certain difficulties involved if this bill became law in the federal jurisdiction, and an aggressive effort were made to enforce it. However, I can assure the hon. member that we shall keep this matter under careful study within the department and the national employment service. It might very well be, and we are looking at that, that an improvement in the provisions for women in our vocational training, counselling and placement services might gain the desired objectives more effectively than by passing a law. I cannot see my way clear to supporting this bill or recommending that a similar bill be introduced by the government at this session. This is not because I am against equal pay for women who do the same work as men. I am sure no member in this house would deny that, and it is not necessary for me to stress it.
Again I say there is a difference between attempting to bring about a remedy by law and having it carried out by collective bargaining on the one hand, and probably the more potent weapon of education on the other. It is because I am not convinced of the necessity or the desirability of trying to enforce such a law within those industries which are subject to federal labour jurisdiction that I reluctantly find I shall have to vote against my hon. friend's bill.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, may I make a correction, which I drew to the minister's attention during the course of his remarks. The passage he mentioned in connection with there being no difficulty in the way of implementation is in the government's own report, not in the words of the delegate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
368. Quebec, $10,890,000.
George Alexander Drew: At five o'clock when the house took up private bills I was dealing with some of the details that it seemed should be before hon. members of this committee and the house in reaching any conclusion. Without in any way suggesting that those who have been awarded the contract are not capable of carrying it out, I pointed out that there are a number of requirements which obviously should be met and which I hoped we would have fully explained to us,

Supply-National Film Board having regard to the highly specialized nature of the construction of this building that is under consideration.
When I quoted the words of the Prime Minister in response to questions which I had asked on January 19 and January 20, the point was raised that this subject had been dealt with on an earlier occasion in this house, and that the item had already been before us. I recall very well that it was before us, and having regard to the whole sequence of events in this extraordinary item now under consideration I should like to recall exactly what was before us, since this has been raised by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The item came before us on April 9 of last year, which is less than a year ago. Reference has been made to the fact that this item was brought forward, as though it is suggested that hon. members were informed and therefore had every reason to accept the decision which had been made. Therefore once again I should like to recall exactly the amount of information that was before hon. members when, under the heavy pressure of both time and numbers, this item was carried. The hon. member for Peterborough did make a determined attempt to find out at least a little about what had taken place and was taking place.
I do not mean by that to suggest that the hon. member for Peterborough was satisfied with a little. He was making an effort to get the information; but I do think that any hon. member who is prepared to deal with this item now upon the basis that hon. members ever had any chance to give it consideration should remember just how much information was elicited at that time. I refer to page 3645 of Hansard for April 9 of last year, and I find this question by the hon. member for Peterborough:
Is it the intention of the government to proceed with that building this year?
Will hon. members please listen to the clear and definite answer that was given on that occasion by the then minister of public works. This was the answer:
I am not too sure that we have completed purchase of the site. I think somebody raised that question earlier in the session, and I answered that we were negotiating with two or three parties who are the owners of the site.
That was the first piece of definite information that was obtained on that occasion. Then later, after a number of similarly broad generalities by the minister of public works at that time, the hon. member for Peterborough asked this question:
Has the minister any idea of the total cost of the building?


Listen to this as a beautiful example of the kind of accurate information that is given hon. members so they may form their well-considered judgment in passing on public business. These were the words of the then minister of public works:
I am told that right now they think that the building will cost $5 million, but we have not got the plans and it is quite difficult for me to make any estimate.
This is not out of "Alice in Wonderland"; this is out of Hansard. "We have not got the plans, and it is difficult for us to give any answer." That was the last occasion this item was up, and we were told the members had an opportunity to inform themselves.
The hon. member for Peterborough, with commendable pertinacity, then asked this question:
What will the site cost on top of that?
Here again we have one of those perfect examples of clarity of expression which will help hon. members form a well-considered judgment:
I cannot give an estimate for the building before the plans and specifications are prepared, and I cannot say whether the site will be comprised in that amount. We have not completed the purchase of the land and I would not like to give the figures I have here at this time.
There, Mr. Chairman, you have all the information that anyone can desire, I am sure-that is, anyone who was not at all interested in getting the facts. I have read only a few of the questions and answers. With all the patience hon. members would be likely to show this evening, I would not wish to read all the questions and answers which will explain still further the amount of detail that was before hon. members. Finally, after an exhausting evening the chairman asked:
And what about items 247 and 248?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
To suggest that this was information upon which any hon. member could pass judgment is surely to reflect upon the dignity of this august body which has had the matter explained to it in such clear and explicit terms within these past few weeks. After all, these are hon. members who must be sure of the facts and sure of the information before they pass on any detail of public business; yet this is a perfect interpretation of the amount of information before us at the time this was dealt with on that occasion.
There was one minor reference later when a supplementary estimate was under consideration, on the very last night the house sat. Some considerable time after midnight, and again under the pressure of time and

Supply-National Film Board
sheer exhaustion, the supplementary estimate was passed with even less information than that now before us.
I have referred to this once again only because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration pointed out that in reading the words of the Prime Minister the fact must be borne in mind that this subject was brought up on an earlier occasion.
We are here now with the first opportunity that has yet been presented to hon. members to get any real information as to the facts and figures upon which the government reached its decision. I am not going to repeat the clear undertaking of the Prime Minister; it is on record. The words are not susceptible of any misinterpretation. They were clear, explicit and understandable; it was left without any reservation that before an official decision was made there would be an opportunity to discuss this subject on the item now before us. Therefore it is upon that basis that this matter comes before us at this time.
May I repeat, the questions to whether this building should be put up in Ottawa, in Montreal, in Vancouver, in Halifax or in St. John's, Newfoundland-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I think perhaps I should receive some support for the pronouncement of Newfoundland.	ff


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: It should be in Ottawa.


George Alexander Drew: That is not the primary consideration before us now. But, oh, Mr. Chairman, it is a wonderful thing to hear at this time how interested the hon. member for Ottawa East is in the subject now before us for consideration.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The Leader of the Opposition knows that when the matter was brought up he was the only one who could reply to the minister because under the rules of the house another member is not allowed to do so.


George Alexander Drew: I have no desire to cause any disturbance to the hon. member, but I do not know what he is speaking about. We are on estimates now and the occasion to which I referred, when this matter was up before, was also on estimates. As the hon. member knows, that is the occasion when there is the freest debate, as I have no doubt we shall have clearly demonstrated here this evening.
Nevertheless, I do point out that this subject is one in which naturally we might have an interest. Since the hon. member for Ottawa East, the hon. member for
Ottawa West and I as the member for Carleton, which embraces part of Ottawa, have certain responsibilities in relation to our own constituents, I recognize that we might very reasonably be interested in the immediate concern of those constituents.
I have carefully placed before this house a broad proposition, and pointed out that before any one of us can argue for or against Ottawa as the site, for or against Montreal or for or against any other site in Canada, it is essential that we have information which is not yet available to us.
I have reviewed this subject. I have referred to what was said on April 9 of last year as well as on a later occasion, because the suggestion was made that we had had an opportunity to consider it before. That is not so. The record is clear that we never had an opportunity. While it is perfectly true that the suggestion was made that Montreal might be considered, the last we were told when this subject was openly before us for debate in this house was that they did not even have the plans, let alone the property, and for that reason no accurate information could be given. Certainly no accurate information was given.
The subject is now before us. We have the clear undertaking by the Prime Minister that the matter would be open for consideration at any time up to the time this item was called. I trust that that undertaking stands, that the matter is open for consideration and that a decision upon this item will be made only upon the basis of the facts presented to this house.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take part in this debate to protest against the removal of the film board from Ottawa to Montreal. I think the method the government has adopted to bring about the move should cause resentment, even among Liberal backbench members. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that our constitution is being violated, morally if not actually, when the government lets a contract of this nature without even coming before parliament to discuss it. Even if the government has not violated the constitution, it has shown once again the utter contempt which it seems to have for backbench private members.
I say that the government, in letting this contract before the matter was discussed in parliament, is acting in a very arbitrary and high-handed way. This afternoon the minister presented us with a fait accompli. We can debate the matter for a week but it will not make a particle of difference, because the contract has been let already. As I said
2598	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board a moment ago, once again the government has ridden roughshod over the rights of members of this house.
I was interested in the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Ottawa West. He said that the move rather caught him by surprise. I want to tell him that these moves which are unwarranted and unnecessary on the part of the government are frequently catching opposition members in the same way. I think the time has come for all private members, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, to get together on this particular estimate and refuse to be rubber stamps. Before I sit down in two or three moments I hope to present a motion which will give an opportunity to the hon. member for Ottawa West, the hon. member for Ottawa East and other Liberal members to do something about the issue.
Why is the government proposing to move this board to Montreal? In my opinion parliament still has not been given a logical answer. After listening to the minister this afternoon it seemed to me that he was still evasive, and still did not give tangible reasons. Aside from the arbitrary way in which parliament has been treated, I think there are other reasons why this particular move should not be made at the present time.
On the surface, at least, it looks as though the proposal is loosely extravagant. It seems to me that once again it emphasizes the amazing disregard which the government has for the taxpayer's dollar. We in this group believe that the work of the national film board is most important to the development of Canada. We believe that the deficit which the national film board has had from year to year can be justified on cultural and educational grounds. But we have grave doubts as to the wisdom of the government expending $7 million or $8 million to move the film board lock, stock and barrel down to Montreal.
What are some of the facts pertaining to the cost? In the first place, the move is going to entail the transfer of a staff of about 475 persons and their families. A short time ago the minister estimated that the cost of that transfer would be about $500,000. It should be remembered that about 99 per cent, or at least a large majority, of the employees object to being uprooted with their families and forced to move out of Ottawa. Apparently their views have not been taken into consideration. The minister should realize that some of them may sever their connection with the film board before leaving their homes and friends.
fMr. Thatcher.]

In the second place I think this move is extravagant, because of the nature of the building which is being erected. According to the Montreal Gazette it required 18 months to prepare the 150 blueprint sheets which were used. The plans provide, among other things, for marble mosaic hallways, eight auditoriums, two garages, a viewing room with chairs with pushbutton ashtrays, decorative ceilings and concealed lighting. According to the plans which have been laid down, the following is to be provided:
An inner courtyard with a pool roughly fifteen feet long and three feet deep, with a fountain sculptured on the themes of sight, motion and sound: light would illuminate the fountain at night.
In other words, when you look at the plans you begin to wonder if the government is proposing to put up some kind of luxury studio, something that will make some of the Hollywood studios look a little bit dull or drab. Small wonder that our budget is hitting the $5 billion mark when we see needless expenditures of this kind being made.
In the third place, I think the location which is proposed is unfortunate. Real estate values, I understand, in Ville St. Laurent are very high. In addition, the site is so close to Dorval airport that costly soundproofing arrangements have to be made. The sound stage, for example, has to be encased in a double-wallS& shell to keep out the noises of jet aircraft aFthe Canadair plant nearby.
I believe if the building were constructed in Ottawa that kind of expenditure would not be necessary. May I also remind hon. members that fully one-third of the film board's work is done for various government departments. This requires very close consultation between those departments and the personnel of the film board. Thus if the board is removed to Montreal, heavy travelling expenses will be involved in view of the necessity for inter-city travel.
I believe the heavy cost involved should be sufficient reason to prevent the government from proceeding with this decision. But aside from the cost there are other factors also. This is the third major government agency which has been moved since I took my place in parliament. First of all we saw the most important offices of the C.B.C. moved to Montreal some time ago. Then the printing bureau was moved to Hull. Now we have the removal of the film board to Montreal. I personally doubt the wisdom of this trend. I believe the national capital should be a national capital, and I believe the headquarters of the film board should be in Ottawa, our country's capital.

Finally, there is the matter of provincial censoring. This was mentioned this afternoon, and I believe it is a very important question which should be considered at this time. May I remind hon. members that a short time ago Mr. Duplessis, premier of Quebec, suggested that he was going to introduce the censoring of C.B.C. television programs. Now, what assurance has the government, if the national film board does move to Montreal, that Premier Duplessis will not decide to censor their work also? I can tell the minister and the cabinet that the people of Saskatchewan will not look kindly upon Premier Duplessis, or any other provincial premier, censoring the kind of film fare they may see; yet if the board does go down to Montreal can the government say this will not take place?
Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that item 368 of the estimates be reduced by $1,500,000, from $10,890,000 to $9,390,000. That, of course, is the amount which the government proposes to spend this year on the actual construction of the new building at Montreal. May I emphasize in conclusion that I am in no way querying the regular expenses of the national film board, but I do query the removal of the board to Montreal.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will know that up until September 18 I was responsible to parliament for the policy of the film board. Since that time, as Minister of Public Works, I have been responsible for building any new accommodation the film board may require.
Since September 18 responsibility to parliament has rested with my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has already demonstrated his thorough competence to deal with matters respecting the policy of the board.
I believe it might be helpful, however, if I did review some of the developments leading up to the decision to move the operating sections of the national film board to Montreal, and also indicate the great many instances on which the government did inform parliament of its specific intentions in that regard.
Recommendations that the government should provide suitable and efficient quarters for the national film board have been made for some years now. Hon. members will recall that since 1950 three independent studies have been made of the board's operations. One was by J. D. Woods and Gordon, management consultants; another was by the
Supply-National Film Board royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, and the third was by a special committee of the house which sat in 1952.
After a firsthand examination of the conditions under which the board now functions, all those bodies recommended that better operating facilities should be provided. A specific and unanimous recommendation of the parliamentary committee was that the board's headquarters operations should be centralized in one building specially designed and constructed to meet its production, technical and distribution needs.
The headquarters staff of the board at the present time operates in nine widely scattered Ottawa buildings, and in two storage buildings near the city. I am sure hon. members who have visited the John street production building, the chief centre of the board's Ottawa operations, will agree that the facilities and working conditions in this one-time lumber mill are far from ideal. Moreover it is a fire hazard, which is an important consideration in view of the type of operations in which the film board is engaged.
Apart from the inconvenience and inefficiency of its present quarters, the board operates under another and very considerable handicap. It has no film studio where indoor shooting can take place. When studio work is required the board has to rent studios in other cities, necessitating considerable travelling expenses, or is compelled to use armouries, private homes, halls and other buildings unsuited to film production work. While the major part of the board's film work will always be carried out on location in various parts of Canada, a studio is essential to effective documentary production of the type now required by the board's outlets.
In order to plan suitable quarters, the Department of Public Works retained as a consultant one of the world's most experienced engineering architects in this field, the New York firm of John and Drew Eberson. This consultant worked very closely with Canadian architects who were responsible for producing the working drawings, and who will supervise the construction. This architect and engineering team was instructed to study the board's operations and its needs, and then to design a building of the minimum size and cost which would meet these needs.
A committee of the members of the board of the national film board was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. C. S. Band of Toronto, and throughout the planning they worked very closely with the Department of Public Works and the architects and examined thoroughly all the proposals. This work was
2600	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board then considered by all the members of the board as a whole, and I personally followed developments very closely. I might add that there were many changes and reductions before the plans were finalized.
The present plans approved by the board provide, I am convinced, that minimum of which I spoke earlier. Once it was decided to build new accommodation problems of location and acquisition of a suitable site became important.
The board of the national film board first recommended in May, 1950, that the operations of the board should be moved to Montreal. Subsequently the board was reorganized, a new act was passed by parliament, and the personnel of the old board resigned and were replaced. The new board considered the same subject and in October, 1950, unanimously recommended that the main portion of the board be moved to Montreal. The board were subsequently asked to reconsider the matter. In September, 1953, they did so and once again confirmed their earlier recommendation that the board's move to Montreal should be made.
Here, Mr. Chairman, is the independent study of the circumstances so often advocated by the Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the point, is the minister saying that the recommendation to move to Montreal was made by that firm of experts from New York?


Robert Henry Winters: I did not say that at all.


George Alexander Drew: Of course you did not, but you left that impression.


Robert Henry Winters: No, I did not, Mr. Chairman. I had no intention of leaving that impression. What I said, and what I hope hon. members heard me say, was that the recommendation to move to Montreal was made by the board of the national film board on three successive occasions.


Mr. Fleming:: Dates?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, in order to avoid confusion, that the minister read to us the words of recommendation upon which the government acted as to the location of this site in Ville St. Laurent, and give us the dates of the recommendation.


Robert Henry Winters: I am reporting to the house that the board of the national film board, duly constituted under the National Film Act, did recommend to the government on three successive occasions that the operations of the film board be moved to Montreal, and the government accepted that recommendation.
fMr. Winters.]


George Alexander Drew: On what dates was that recommendation made?


Robert Henry Winters: The first occasion was May of 1950, the second was October of 1950, and the third was September, 1953.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wonder whether the
minister would permit a question. Would he tell us who are the members of the board now?


Robert Henry Winters: Rather than interrupt my remarks at this time we will provide that information at a later date. The reasons for deciding to locate the board's operations in Montreal were fully explained to the parliamentary committee in 1952, but perhaps a brief review would be helpful. None of the three agencies that studied the operations of the film board within the past few years, that is, J. D. Woods and Gordon, the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, and the parliamentary committee, made a specific recommendation as to location. I want to make that clear. They did not recommend in favour of Ottawa, nor did they recommend in favour of Montreal.
I think perhaps I should refer to the report submitted by J. D. Woods and Gordon in that connection. On page 28 under the paragraph headed "Centralized accommodation", in which they recommended that new and adequate accommodation be provided, they ended their recommendation by stating:
We recommend that centralized accommodation be provided as soon as it is practical to do so.
At the start of the report, where a summary of the principal recommendations is given, recommendation No. 11 reads:
The work of the board in Ottawa should be centralized and suitable accommodation provided.
In the course of the hearings of the parliamentary committee the then commissioner, Mr. Arthur Irwin, outlined in considerable detail the reasons in favour of the move to Montreal. In reporting, the committee recommended that the operations of the board be consolidated in a new and suitable building, and since the committee was well aware of the government's intention to move the board's operations to Montreal and the reasons therefor, one can quite reasonably and naturally assume that the committee endorsed the move.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt but it might help clear up the matter.


Robert Henry Winters: You are, though.


George Alexander Drew: The minister is well aware that with respect to the very reference he is making the chairman of the film board was asked:
What is the reason lor locating in Montreal?
The minister knows that the answer given was:
That is a matter of policy, sir, and I do not know whether or not I should review it.
That was all the information given to the committee.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall deal with that, too, in due course. The making of motion pictures is a creative operation. The board must be staffed by people with creative minds behind whom there is a full head of creative talent. In Canada this creative talent must of necessity come from both our French and Englishspeaking populations. It is abundantly clear from the board's operations over the years that this pool of creative talent is more readily available in the larger centres of Montreal and Toronto than it is in Ottawa. It has been necessary to import much of it here from those centres. Of the two large cities I have mentioned, Montreal is the one with the larger pool of cultural and creative talent in both English and French.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, it is desirable that the film board should conduct its operations in the same general area with private producers in the same field so as to have the optimum interchange of talent, technicians and facilities. Montreal is the centre of quite a substantial private motion picture producing business in both English and French. Another important factor is the expanding use of films for television, and the fact that the production facilities of the C.B.C.'s developing television system are located in Montreal.
Having made the decision to move the board's operations to Montreal, existing accommodation there was considered. But in addition to the usual problems of transportation, housing, availability of services and so on which are attendant upon locating a fairly large operation in any municipality, we were faced with special problems because of the nature of the board's operations. For example, there had to be stability of soil and freedom from vibration from highway, rail and tramway traffic. There had to be an assured supply of abnormally large quantities of fresh water and relative freedom from dust and noise. These and other requirements made it necessary to examine in detail 15 different sites in the Montreal area before one was acquired in Ville St. Laurent a short distance east of Decarie boulevard and on the north side of Cote de Liesse.
Supply-National Film Board
I may say that because Cartierville airport is only a few miles away from the site we asked Canadair to fly low-flying jets overhead at full power to check the noise and vibration. These factors, that is noise and vibration, were among the many considered when selecting a site from the 15 examined. It is 14-714 acres in area and will cost about $280,000. Actually there is a homologated line approximately 150 feet back from the main frontage of the property because of the contemplated construction at some date of the trans-Canada highway along Cote de Liesse, and this homologated line will reduce the ultimate area of the site by 2-63 acres.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not parliament was informed of the decision to locate the board in Montreal, let me review certain of the instances when parliament was informed. First of all, to deal with the proceedings of the special committee on the national film board which sat in 1952, at pages 20 and 21 under the heading "Adequate facilities" Mr. Irwin in presenting his brief said-and I think perhaps it would be helpful if I were to read part of it-
For many years one of the board's most serious problems has been the inadequacy of the premises in which it is housed. The Woods Gordon report pointed out that it "has had to carry on its operation in ten separate buildings located in different parts of the city. This has made co-ordination difficult and has led to the duplication of certain services. Besides being scattered, the buildings available were not designed for efficient film production". The report recommended that the work of the board should be centralized and suitable accommodation provided.
The royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences noted "with anxious concern that the various premises in which the film board conducts its operation are cramped, scattered, inconvenient and hazardous. In the interests of economy and efficiency this deplorable situation should be changed". The commission recommended that safe and efficient premises be provided without delay.
Measures have been taken looking towards the implementing of these recommendations. On February 8th last, the Minister of Resources and Development, Hon. Mr. Winters, announced that after detailed study of fifteen possible sites in the Montreal area, a site in Ville St. Laurent, a suburb of Montreal, had been acquired by the Department of Public Works for a proposed new building for the national film board.
The minister added that plans for the proposed building were being prepared by the Department of Public Works and it is expected that these will be available during the current fiscal year.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a quotation from the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 1. I could read the list of members in attendance that day, and perhaps I should. They included Messrs. Beyerstein, Boisvert, Browne (St. John's West), Byrne, Cannon, Carroll, Carter, Coldwell, Courtemanche, Decore, Dinsdale, Ferguson, Fraser, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gauthier (Portneuf), Henry, Jutras, Knight, MacLean (Queens, P.E.I.),
2602	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board Macnaughton, McWilliam, Richard (Ottawa East), Smith (Moose Mountain), Whitman, Winters. That report was dated Thursday, May 8, 1952.
Then on page 33 of the committee proceedings there was a series of questions by Mr. Browne. He asked Mr. Irwin about the location of the film board, and Mr. Irwin said he thought perhaps that was a policy question. Mr. Browne asked:
How far has that project gone?
Mr. Irwin said:
The minister may wish to answer that question.
Then the minister, who at the time was myself, said:
We acquired land in Montreal, and plans are being prepared for a building to be built at some time on that site.
Then the hon. member for Peterborough asked the following question:
Would that involve the movement of the whole film board from here in Ottawa to Montreal?
This was followed by certain other questions and then the hon. member for Saskatoon, of the C.C.F. party, dealing with this proposed move to Montreal said:
The visit we had to that place certainly proved to me that the need for such a move is necessary.
Now, I think that makes it clear that hon. members of the committee were given every opportunity to debate the move to Montreal.


George Alexander Drew: But remember the Minister of Public Works last year said they had not a site.


Robert Henry Winters: Then, Mr. Chairman, on page 88 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee for Tuesday, June 3, 1952, and Tuesday, June 24, 1952, the witness, Mr. Irwin, answered the following question put by Mr. Browne:
They are going to Montreal instead of remaining in Ontario? A. That is the policy.
He then asked about liaison and was told there would be liaison with Ottawa. Then the hon. member for Brandon-Souris asked:
What is the reason for locating in Montreal?
At that time the witness, Mr. Irwin, outlined at some length, as shown on pages 88 and 89, the reason it was deemed by the board expedient and in the interests of efficiency and economy to move the operations of the board to Montreal.
Then, Mr. Chairman, there are other instances. I find in reviewing Hansard that a question was asked on the orders of the day as far back as March 21, 1951, by Mr. A. Earl Catherwood, the former member for Haldimand. He asked me to comment on the report that the headquarters of the film board were being moved to Montreal, and in my


reply at that time I stated that no final decision had been made but Montreal was among the centres being considered, and that Montreal had much to commend it.
Then, Mr. Chairman, in the estimates of the Department of Pubic Works for 1951-52 there was an amount of $300,000 to cover the acquisition of property in Montreal, and that was specifically designated as property in Montreal. It was under item 343. When this item was considered there was no criticism.
On February 8, 1952, I made a press announcement in which it was stated that a site in Ville St. Laurent, Montreal, had been acquired by the Department of Public Works for the proposed new building for the national film board, and that detailed studies of possible sites in the Montreal area had been carried out by the Department of Public Works. There is more to the announcement, but I merely point to it as another avenue to try to keep the public informed of the intention to move the film board to Montreal.
Then in the estimates for 1952-53 there was an item of $500,000 to cover the expense of moving the operations of the film board to Montreal. On February 13, 1953, the hon. member for Mount Royal asked about the move to Montreal, and I informed him at that time that the work would start late that year at Ville St. Laurent on a building to house the operations of the national film board. The site had been purchased by the government, and I thought it would be about two years before the quarters were ready.
In the estimates for 1953-54, under item 328, there is an amount of $900,000 for the construction of a national film board building in Montreal. This item was considered on April 9, 1953, at which time in reply to a question by the hon. member for Peterborough the former minister of public works informed the committee of the government's plans for going forward with the move to Montreal. In particular he stated at page 3645 of Hansard for that date:
If the hon. gentleman wants to know whether we are going to go ahead with the project, that is the intention of the government.
Then when the estimates of the film board were considered earlier this year, hon. members will recall that no one asked a question of any nature on the operations of the film board, despite the fact that the estimates specifically earmarked $900,000 for the film board move.


George Alexander Drew: The minister does not mean this year.


Robert Henry Winters: No, it was 1953. Thank you for the correction. This indicates the extent to which the government has gone to keep hon. members and the public generally informed as to the government's intention to move the film board to Montreal.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have heard it said in some quarters, although not here today, that the national film board is expanding its operations and that it intends to become a Canadian Hollywood. I must say that I thought the Leader of the Opposition took a very constructive attitude in his view toward the operations of the film board generally. Let me say just a few words about that talk of expansion. After the war there were about 750 people working for the board, which was then farming out little of its work to private producers. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue, during the period he was chairman of the board, started a program of retrenchment.
Since November, 1948, when I became responsible to parliament for the national film board, it has undergone substantial reorganization and consolidation. Among other things I directed the commissioner of the film board to reduce staff, with the result that despite a much larger and growing distribution of films, the number of personnel now employed is about 540, a reduction of over 200. There has been no expansion in that direction. The board was directed to concentrate on quality and produce the type of picture which would raise the standard of motion picture production generally in Canada, while at the same time confining itself to its job of interpreting Canada to Canadians and people abroad. I regard the production role of the board as a sort of standard setter for the Canadian industry in the field of motion pictures.
With this in mind I had hoped that it would be necessary for the board itself to produce no more pictures than were essential to maintain a high level of knowledge, technique and efficiency. As part of that policy the board was directed to assign more of its work to private producers who could meet the quality requirements. This has been done with what I consider to be good results.
It is a fact that for complete films, partial production, processing and printing purchases in Canada only the board did business with private industry to the extent of $81,000 in 1950-51. A comparable figure for the same item in 1952-53 was $260,000. There was no expansionist policy in this respect.
It has often been said that all motion pictures produced in Canada should be produced by private enterprise, just as they are
Supply-National Film Board in the United States, leaving the impression that no motion pictures are produced by other than private enterprise in the United States. That, Mr. Chairman, is quite in error. I find that a good many departments of government in the United States have motion picture producing facilities, and that several departments, individually, have plants which exceed the national film board's in size and expense, and which in addition include research facilities in the field of motion pictures.
As to the physical size of the building, operation for operation, the floor area of the new building will be less than the area of existing accommodation, largely by virtue of the fact that there will be a consolidation of operations under one roof. For example, the net working area in the board's present headquarters buildings totals 148,976 square feet. The net working area for the same operations in the proposed building will total 125,760 square feet.
In view of the present cramped quarters of the board, this reduction may seem surprising. It was made possible by careful allocation of space in a building specifically designed to meet the needs of film operations. However, the new building will include facilities not presently possessed by the board but nevertheless highly important. One such is a sound stage with a floor area of 9,339 square feet. I might say in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that the size of the average sound stage in Hollywood is 150 by 100 feet. We are proposing one sound stage here. As a matter of interest I might say that Warner Brothers, for example, have 25 large stages, and 80 per cent of them are bigger than the one planned by the film board. Metro-Gold-wyn-Mayer have 30 stages. The largest of them is 510 by 134 feet and the smallest 73 by 81 feet. The national film board sound stage is 70 by 120 feet.
There will also be a power house substation, truck storage, cafeteria, first aid quarters, film storage vaults and so on, all of which are necessary in a building housing some 415 employees engaged in this specialized operation. The total inside floor area of the building will be 280,000 square feet.
Mr. Chairman, the contract for this building, which I have mentioned, is for $5,230,760, and is based upon a cubic content of 4,980,000 cubic feet. This works out at $1.05 per cubic foot, which is not out of line when the specialized type of construction required for much of it is considered. For purposes of comparison, the cost per cubic foot of the new bureau of statistics building was $1.07,
2604	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board and it is considered to be a relatively inexpensive building. I might add, as a matter of interest, that construction costs are somewhat lower in Montreal than they are in Ottawa.
The Leader of the Opposition asked for the names of those who had tendered, and the amounts. I have that information here. The tenderers were as follows:
George Hardy Limited	 $5,230,760
Louis Donolo Incorporated	 5,277,000
The Key Construction Limited	 5,297,400
Charles Duranceau Limited	 5,472,000
Angus Robertson Limited	 5,498,166
The Foundation Company of Canada
Limited	 5,522,566
B. Perini and Sons Canada Limited	 5,593,061
The Tower Company Limited	 5,659,800
Anglin-Norcross Quebec Limited	 5,699,000
Pentagon Construction Company Limited 5,709,318 Terminal Construction Company Limited 5,777,000
A. Janin and Company Limited	 5,819,300
E. G. M. Cape and Company	 5,840,000
Walter G. Hunt Company Limited	 6,239,000


Mr. Mclvor:: May I ask the minister a question? As this building will be far away from Montreal, is there any building for physical instruction, such as a gymnasium, so they can keep their figures in shape?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or a spring-filled dance floor?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, there are no such recreational facilities in the building. I would emphasize that this will not be primarily an office building. Although it will contain some office space, the proposed new building is essentially a production plant designed to house technical processes of a complex kind.
The studio, for instance, must be soundproofed by means of double-shell construction. This is the case whether it is near an airport or not, and whether it is in Ottawa or Montreal. The building must have facilities to provide the laboratories with large quantities of fresh water each day at constant temperatures. Many areas must be kept air-conditioned and dust-free. Complicated electric and electronic systems must be installed. This is a specialized operation; it requires custom-made facilities, and these can be obtained efficiently only by the construction of a specially designed building, as was recommended by the parliamentary committee and others.
That is what the government are proposing to do, and we are proposing to do it in the most economical way possible.
Mr. Chairman, there are always those people who are concerned about the future of the film board. When the act was changed some three years ago fear was widely expressed in Ottawa that we were ruining the film board, despite the fact that the government made it clear that its intention was


to produce a better film board. I think the public generally is now satisfied that we have done that.
The government's intention in this instance is to produce a better board by providing it with facilities it needs in an area where it can obtain the required technical skill and creative talents to maintain that high quality of production which Canadians have come to expect from the film board. Any reduction in the amount of this vote now would in effect destroy the operation of the film board and, Mr. Chairman, the government has no intention of sitting by and seeing that done. For that reason we intend to oppose the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, we are still waiting for a word of explanation as to the choice of the site. Will the minister read to us the extracts from the three reports he has mentioned which recommended the choice of this site?


Robert Henry Winters: I think that question is unnecessary, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: So do I.


Robert Henry Winters: The Leader of the Opposition heard my statement in reply to a question he raised. I said specifically that none of the three agencies had recommended in favour of Ottawa, nor had they recommended in favour of Montreal or any other location. They simply recommended that better facilities be provided. The board itself, that independent body that the government looks to for recommendations as to policy and direction on the film board, recommended that the operating facilities of the board be moved to Montreal, and the government accepted that recommendation.


George Alexander Drew: The minister misunderstood me. I asked him whether he would read us the extracts from the recommendations of the board which explained why this should be done.


Robert Henry Winters: I understood the Leader of the Opposition. I think I understood him correctly that he asked me to read from the reports.


George Alexander Drew: No, I did not.


Mr. Chevrier:: Oh, yes; that is what you asked for.


Robert Henry Winters: In any event, reports of the film board to the government are privileged documents, and I am sure hon. members-


George Alexander Drew: That is the independent body.


Robert Henry Winters: -will assume that I am speaking correctly when I say that was their recommendation, and that the government accepted it.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister say whether there were any recommendations from any officials, other than the board, which suggested any other site?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I think the Leader of the Opposition intends to attempt to lead me into a position where I will reveal recommendations of officials working within a government agency to the head of the agency, and I shall do no such thing.


George Alexander Drew: I want the minister to disclose that there were recommendations against this.


Robert Henry Winters: You say so, if you know it.


George Alexander Drew: 
Robert Henry Winters: By whom?


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister tell the committee now that this independent body, so free of government as it is described, did not forward to the government any recommendations from the officials within the board other than those to which he has referred?


Lionel Chevrier: He has told you, and he is not subject to cross-examination.


Robert Henry Winters: The recommendations we received from the board on three separate occasions were to the effect that the operating sections of the national film board should be set up in Montreal.


George Alexander Drew: Surely the minister can answer the question. Surely the minister can answer whether or not there have been received any
Supply-National Film Board recommendations other than those to which he has referred, recommendations which proposed alternative sites.


Robert Henry Winters: It is the national film board to whom I looked for advice when responsible to parliament, and that board recommended to me that the facilities be moved to Montreal.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister tell us what will be the total cost of the land, buildings and equipment when this is completed?


Robert Henry Winters: The contract cost of the building is $5,230,000. The land will cost, when settlement is completed, about $280,000. The cost of the equipment I do not know. I think my colleague will be in a better position to give an up-to-date estimate of that. I do not think the cost of new equipment will be so much. At the present time the film board is fairly well equipped. There will be cost involved in the movement of equipment to Montreal; there will doubtless be some new equipment required, but I have no estimate of what that might be.


George Alexander Drew: I heard the impatient comments from those who are not interested in getting any facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: It is all in your mind.


George Alexander Drew: After all, we have had an answer now that is really merely a continuance of the answers we received on April 9 of last year: "I do not know how much it is going to be; it will not be so much." Well, how much is so much? We have just been told by the minister that one of the considerations would be the fact that there will be facilities for the production of films for television within the same area. Let us know just what it is going to cost to put in the new equipment that will be involved in bringing this operation into harmony with the other operations providing the films for television, which constitute a new operation. Can the minister not tell us that?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I cannot. After all, this is an estimate to cover the cost of the building in Montreal. There will be another occasion to consider the estimates of the national film board, and I suggest that would be a much more appropriate occasion on which to obtain these details.


Mr. MacDougall:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Public Works, because I came down here from the

Supply-National Film Board far Pacific coast with a great deal of misgiving respecting the transfer of the national film board from the capital city of Ottawa to the city of Montreal. Out on the Pacific coast we have felt, rightly or wrongly, that in the development of the federal district in and around the city of Ottawa the taxpayers of Canada were endeavouring to build a national capital.
When I left the coast on November 7 last a great number of people were concerned. What were they concerned about? They were concerned about the fact that on the one hand we were taking the taxpayers' money to develop a national capital in Ottawa, and on the other we were removing the cornerstones of that national capital and setting up the film board headquarters in the city of Montreal. That was the impression with which I came to this session of parliament. I will have to admit that until tonight, until I heard the fine explanation of the situation by the Minister of Public Works, I was labouring under a similar delusion to that of the people in my riding.
I view this situation now as one of complexity, because as I tried to get the eye of the chairman, the Leader of the Opposition rose on six different occasions. Therefore it is six to one. He is batting six hundred and I am batting only a hundred. With respect to that question, I do not mind it particularly for the simple reason that I view this situation very much like Sherlock Holmes did when he was called in to solve a very complicated situation. He said to his good friend, "Watson, I must take charge of this situation immediately because it is so complicated; I find that the window has been broken on both sides." I think the window has been broken on both sides with respect to the film board.


An hon. Member:: No windows.


John Lorne MacDougall: We have statements without foundation, statements that have no basis in fact, rumours and frustration all over the land with respect to the national film board. We have heard tonight a review of the actual facts which prompted the government to make certain recommendations with respect to the removal of the film board.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


John Lorne MacDougall: That to me is a factual explanation of what has transpired.


An hon. Member:: Simple, Dr. Watson.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: You are biased.


John Lorne MacDougall: My good friend the hon. member for Peterborough says I am biased.


Possibly I am, but if I am biased I am biased on a good side. I feel that the people of Canada are vitally interested in the production of good films. I have to admit with a great deal of temerity that I am about as unarty as any unarty member in this house.


An hon. Member:: That is obvious.


An hon. Member:: Too modest.


John Lorne MacDougall: As far as cinematography and television are concerned, I am not in the slightest concerned with them as an individual, but there are hundreds of thousands of people in my province and in the other nine provinces of Canada who look forward with a great deal of anticipation to the showing of national film board films.
In the metropolitan areas of Canada there are a thousand and one different types of amusement with which the people may amuse themselves. But let us not forget that there are many thousands of rural areas in Canada where the facilities for the handling and presenting of pictures and television are not adequate and may not be adequate for many years to come. It behooves us to do what we can, particularly for the people in those remote areas, to see to it-will this magpie chorus behind me pipe down, please?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John Lorne MacDougall: You have given me a derail cocktail, and I do not know where I stopped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is where you started.


John Lorne MacDougall: Don't worry, I will handle you later on. We have to consider the hundreds of thousands of people who do not enjoy the privileges enjoyed by those who live in the metropolitan areas from east to west in our fair domain. Those people look forward with a great deal of expectation to the presentation of national film board films in the remote areas of our land. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members of this committee that the spirit of Canada does not lie particularly in the metropolitan areas. The pioneering spirit that made Canada what it is today is to be found in the remote areas of this land.
It is all very well to sit back in complacency and say, "To heck with you, Joe; everything is all right as long as everything is all right with me". I was raised on a much simpler doctrine than that, to do unto others as I would that they should do unto me. I think that is the philosophy with which we should judge this great national problem today. We should consider the other fellow who is in less happy circumstances than we are.

In conclusion I want, on my own behalf and on behalf of a great number of people in British Columbia, to thank sincerely the Minister of Public Works for the fine, lucid and clear explanation he has given of this national film board problem. He and the other ministers, whether by a majority or unanimous decision of the cabinet, decided to make this change in the interests of the people of Canada. I want to leave this last closing word with you, Mr. Chairman. Under no circumstances whatsoever should any man or woman in this house judge this question upon racial or religious principles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lorne MacDougall: It must be based entirely upon that which is the best for the common weal of the people of Canada.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the last speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, started off by saying that he approached this question with some misgivings, but by the time he ended he had talked himself completely out of any misgivings whatsoever. His changed feelings may have been due in part to the speech which the minister made. I must say that what the minister said left me at the end with the same misgivings I had when he started.
I must also say that he made a very powerful case against the opposition, and legitimately so. I speak for myself when I say that we were lax and remiss, we were wrong; but I am not going to stay quiet because I am afraid to say I was wrong at some other time. I think the error which is being committed now is much worse than the errors which were committed by us some months ago and some years ago.
The minister has given us many reasons for the film board being moved. He has quoted reports. For instance, the Woods-Gordon company, if I remember rightly, suggested that the work of the board in Ottawa should be centralized and suitable accommodation be provided. If the minister agrees that better operating facilities should have been provided, that the film board should be operating in one building instead of in many buildings as it has in the past; if he agrees that that meant inefficiency, as it was bound to, then the government should have done something for the film board years ago when we were asking them to give some consideration to the problems of that board. But the government did nothing at all until it decided that the film board should be moved to Montreal.
Supply-National Film Board
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition asked what were the facts upon which this decision was based. The only fact I could get out of the minister's speech concerning this decision was that in Montreal there is lots of fresh water and there is freedom from dirt and noise. I am certain that there are other areas in the country to which those facts would be equally applicable. I question profoundly the wisdom of moving the board to Montreal or any other area. When the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard expresses the hope that this matter will not be regarded in a racial or religious manner he is talking nonsense-


John Lorne MacDougall: Nonsense to you.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I say you
are talking nonsense. No one interjected that idea until you came along.
During the course of his remarks the minister said that any reduction in this vote would destroy the effectiveness of the national film board. That is just not so. If the film board should stay in this city that fact would not reduce its effectiveness one iota compared with its effectiveness in the past. But the government has become stubborn. It has made up its mind. It has dug in its heels and said, "We are not going to budge." Yet the government's policy is not only stubborn; it is also silly. One can forgive a silly policy. After all, it is a natural manifestation. But I find it very difficult to forgive stubbornness because that is an acquired characteristic. The wedding of this manifestation and of this characteristic is usually the basis for Liberal policy; and it is not a good way, I assure hon. members, to govern this country.
The Leader of the Opposition asked for the facts on which this decision was based, but none have been forthcoming. However, there is one fact in regard to this move, and it hinges entirely upon the decision of the last commissioner of the film board. He felt it would be a good move to make and he sold a lot of people a bill of goods. I do not question that he acted honestly, nor do I question his belief that he was right. But he did sell that bill of goods to the government, and they are now either too proud or too stubborn to retreat from the position which they have taken.
This afternoon the hon. member for Ottawa West said this move came as a surprise to him. But why? After all, last year the hon. member in his position as parliamentary assistant to the Acting Prime Minister was surely on the outskirts of the government. He was surely near to government policy. He must have had some idea of what was going on.

Supply-National Film Board If this came to the hon. member as a surprise, then what sort of cabal have we existing within the government? If it came as a surprise to my hon. friend over there then it came as just as much a surprise to hon. members here. That does not mean that it becomes any more palatable.
Some arguments have been advanced for moving the film board, and the Minister of Public Works repeated some of them tonight. I simply do not agree with him any more than I suppose he agrees with me. But at least he did not use the argument I have heard so often in the past, that it is highly important from the point of view of creative capacity that the film board has to be removed from the deadening influence of the civil service atmosphere. I do not believe the atmosphere in Ottawa is as dull or as effete as many would make out.
The minister did say that it was important for the board to get into some area such as Montreal or Toronto where there was a pool of creative talent. But may I remind the minister that Montreal and Toronto are not the only areas in this country in which there is creative talent. One has only to listen to the radio to find that there is as much creative talent in Winnipeg or Vancouver or in other areas across the country. I think it is true to say that the best films produced by the film board have not used professional talent but ordinary run of the mill Canadians, ordinary men, women and children; and the film board does not depend upon a pool of creative talent such as the minister suggests in order to do its best work. I admit that in Montreal and Toronto there are professional actors, but I do not believe they are a necessity to the operations of the film board.
The minister mentioned television. Television is important, and the part which the film board can play in television is perhaps very important. But we can make no greater mistake than to assume that the primary task of the film board is to act as an adjunct to the C.B.C. in producing films for television. There is a vast difference between the sort of work we expect from the film board, which is interpreting Canada to Canadians, and the work being done on television. Television is something which is evanescent, something like the reports which are made by journalists for newspapers. They are written, printed and then disappear from the ken of man. The sort of film we expect from the film board is something which is going to be of more lasting importance, which will have some effect and which will still be worth seeing two or three years from now.


It has been suggested that it would be advisable to have the film board administration decentralized, but this is a suggestion which I simply cannot understand. What is going to happen is this. The working section of the film board is going to be near Montreal and the administrative offices of the film board are going to be in Ottawa. How in the name of business or sanity can one expect the film board to adequately administer the corporation without being much nearer the scene of operations? That sort of arrangement does not add up to sense.
The government has loaded the incoming commissioner with a tremendous incubus which may conceivably weigh him down. I do not believe it is a fair proposition. He had no say in the policy, but he happens to have inherited the policy of his predecessor who, in turn, sold what I call a bill of goods to the government.
Another factor which must be borne in mind is that the film board must maintain the closest liaison with government departments. What sort of bill for travelling expenses are we going to accumulate on behalf of the film board personnel when they move to Montreal if they have repeatedly to get in touch with government departments in this city? Research has to be carried out which can only be conducted in the national capital, for the facts and figures and the kind of information they require will have to be found here. That will mean they will have to commute between Montreal and Ottawa, and one can easily imagine the kind of bill we will have to meet. In addition, how can the commissioner possibly keep a finger on everything, and maintain efficiency in Montreal if he has to spend most of his time in Ottawa? However, the government feels that the commissioner ought to be here, and perhaps in Montreal we will have some other administrative group.
One of the big problems is going to be the fact that several hundred employees of the film board are going to move. It may be unpleasant, but hundreds have to do that in other employment. One can sympathize with them, but it is not an insuperable problem. A greater argument to my mind and of greater importance is that many members of the film board, rather than uproot themselves here and rather than go to another province- and I do not care which province it is-might decide to leave the film board. It is conceivable that many of the brighter people in the film board would rather stay here in the hope of getting other jobs or go into the professional production of films in this city, and they may leave the board.

As I said before, the last commissioner came to the conclusion that the move to Montreal would be a good idea. He sold this idea to a great number of people in this city. He sold the idea to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, though let it be said for him that he came out in his own paper and admitted that he had been sold the idea, that he now realizes the idea is not as good as he first thought, and that he has changed his mind on the subject.
The government has accepted this recommendation, and this is the only fact which has been given to us. Now the government has become stubborn. It feels that its prestige is at stake, and it is now resolved not to budge. If I may put the matter colloquially I would sum it up in this way, Mr. Chairman. The last commissioner laid an egg and the administration sitting over there has hatched something pretty horrible.


Mr. Hahn:: In speaking to the amendment I should like to suggest that the Minister of Public Works made an excellent case for the moving of the film board, so far as the government's view is concerned. I believe he has sold us on the idea that the film board should be moved, but I do not know that he has sold us on where it should be moved. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard suggested that there were other places, but tonight he has been so favourably impressed as to believe that Montreal must be the place and Montreal alone. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has suggested that Montreal and Toronto are not the only places of culture in Canada. I believe that truer words were never spoken. In Winnipeg and Vancouver we have two of the finest cultural centres in all Canada.
Why do we have to centralize everything in the east? If we are going to move something, let us move something westward for a change. I happen to be the member for New Westminster, but I do not necessarily suggest that New Westminster must be the place. The Minister of Public Works did say that a bilingual centre must be chosen. Very close to the city of New Westminster, in the town of Maillardville, we have one of the finest groups of French-Canadian people that one could find. They may not be as cultured as those of the far east-


An hon. Member:: Far more.


Frederick George Hahn: -but at least we have a bilingual situation there. If it is so simple to move the film board to the city of Montreal, would it not be just as simple to move some of our people of French culture to the far west, to the city of Vancouver, let us say? We have
Supply-National Film Board the trees, the mountains, the sea and everything else that could be desired for the filming of beautiful pictures. If it does become the policy of the government to start decentralizing things, then I suggest that the government should get up and say so. Let them "tell the people that they are going to decentralize. Let them say that they are going to move the Department of Agriculture to the province of Alberta or to Saskatchewan. The province of British Columbia deserves more public works in proportion to the taxation it has paid in the past 20 years than any other province, so let them move the Department of Public Works to the Pacific coast. Let us decentralize these departments.
Coming back to the particular problem of the film board, it has taken the government a matter of three years, from 1950 to 1953, to sell itself the idea that it is necessary to move the board to Montreal. The Leader of the Opposition asked a most pertinent question about other recommendations, but we did not get a satisfactory answer. I think the people of Canada are entitled to know whether there are any other places in Canada that should have the privilege of at least expecting that the film board might be moved to their particular localities.
Reference was made to the matter of television, but I do not think that should be considered in the same light as the production of films for the people of Canada. As I understand it, the purpose of the film board is to sell Canada to Canadians through films produced by the board. The project is an excellent one, but if we are going to sell Canada to Canadians through the film board then the question of television is rather irrelevant, because television sells itself with the Hollywood type of picture that seems so desirable in so far as the public are concerned. Wrestling matches and things of that type are a lot more appealing to the public than the Kitimat project, for instance.
I would say that the biggest problem the film board must solve today is the matter of public relations between the government and the people of Canada. For instance, I saw a very interesting film on the Kitimat project. I think any Canadian who sees that film will understand that the government is definitely trying to assist in the building up of Canada. That happens to be a particular project. I would go so far as to suggest that if that is the problem confronting the board, then what is wrong with keeping the film board in Ottawa? Why must we go to Montreal to visit the central offices of the film board? Why must we go to Hull to see the printing bureau? When I come to the

Supply-National Film Board capital city of Canada I do not expect to have to run all over the rest of Canada to visit the various government offices.
If we are going to have centralization, then let it be here in our national capital. If it is necessary let us build a pentagon, or something similar to what has been constructed in the United States, to house all our important departments. So far as I am concerned I have not heard a plausible reason why the offices of the film board should be moved from Ottawa to Montreal, Vancouver or any other place in Canada. I suggest that the problem should be examined very closely and carefully. If we are going to decentralize the departments of government we should make a particular point to tell the people of Canada. The government should be honest about it and tell the people that for protective purposes, or whatever the reason may be, they are going to decentralize and place various offices right across Canada, so that if you want to see someone about a particular project you may have to travel from one end of the country to the other.
I suggest that might not be a bad idea at that. Members of parliament might become more familiar with the rest of Canada if, for example, a certain office was on the west coast and another one was in Newfoundland. We might see some members when they came to the far west, and have the privilege of explaining our problems to them. I am sure the hon. member from Newfoundland who commended this move a moment ago would be just as happy to see some of us come to Newfoundland so he could explain to us the problems with respect to fishing and other matters.
I do not wish to speak at great length on this particular problem, and I hope I have not tired you, Mr. Chairman. But the spirit of Canada must prevail, the spirit of either centralization or decentralization. In this particular instance the Canadian people have every right to know exactly what is the full truth of the story. We should have a clear explanation, but up to now I would say it is as clear as mud.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion tonight some reference has been made to the committee on the national film board of 1952. When the minister referred to that committee, it seemed to me that he was suggesting that there was unanimous approval of the idea of shifting the national film board headquarters to Montreal. It was my privilege to sit as a member on that committee, and as I listened to the presentation of the then chairman of the board, Mr. Irwin,

it was not my impression that the committee generally agreed with the idea that the location of the film board should be changed from Ottawa to Montreal. In fact my sentiments were just the opposite, and I believe that if other members of the committee take part in this discussion they will reveal similar sentiments.
I must also admit that my sentiments have not been changed by anything that has been said in the discussion thus far, either by the minister or by anyone else who has spoken in favour of the move. Rather I would agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West who put forth an excellent case here this afternoon for the retention of the film board activities in the capital city.
During the minister's remarks he made some reference to a question I asked during the deliberations of the committee. The question was something like this: Why was the film board going to be moved from Ottawa to Montreal? If the minister had continued reading the evidence he would have revealed that I expressed ideas similar to those which have just been put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster. If it was necessary to change the location of the film board, why not move it to some other part of Canada which could provide adequate facilities for carrying on the operations of the board? I shall pursue that point further toward the conclusion of my remarks.
At this stage in my discussion I want to point out that there are two phases, as I see them, of national film board operations. In the first instance we have the basic task of production. As I have listened to the discussion it has seemed to me that hon. members from all sides of the house have indicated agreement that the national film board has done an excellent job under rather difficult circumstances, in providing educational and documentary films that emphasize the Canadian viewpoint. There seems to be general agreement on that conclusion.
Just as important as the task of producing films is the job of distribution. When the Minister of Public Works indicated that there had been a decrease of some 200 employees engaged in film board operations, it occurred to me immediately that this reduction in personnel had taken place not on the production side of film-making but rather on the distribution side. Before I came to this house it was my privilege to be quite closely associated with the distribution of films through our local film council in the city of Brandon.
I recall that just after the war there was a substantial national film board staff located in the Winnipeg regional office. This staff

was drastically reduced in about 1948. The reduction in staff took place among the field men who were working in the rural areas carrying on the important task of bringing documentary and educational films to the people in the relatively isolated sections of Canada, those who could most benefit from them.
At that time, in 1948, when the reduction in staff occurred-which I have just learned this evening came as the result of government policy at that time-the work of film distribution was rather sadly dislocated. The problem has been overcome by voluntary action at the local level, so that today film distribution is largely out of the hands of film board agencies. We find that most of the work of distribution in the rural areas is being handled by university extension departments. Only this winter the University of Manitoba followed the general trend and assumed complete responsibility for the distribution not only of national film board pictures but also films produced by any other agency in Canada, as well as from the many other sources of supply that are available outside Canada. There is no responsibility devolving upon the national film board in that regard at all.
Then, too, I think one of the most encouraging developments in this effort to bring good films to the people is the increase in voluntary action by local councils. It became necessary to fill the gap that was left by the sudden evacuation of the national film board, and during the past five or six years almost every area in the province from which I come has succeeded in gathering together a group of public-minded citizens who are enthusiastically taking care of this problem of distribution. Not only do they provide facilities for film distribution but they carry on considerable propaganda through the local press and through the conduct of film festivals, and in addition by buying their own projection equipment. Formerly this equipment was supplied through national film board channels. Through the appeals for funds to obtain sufficient money to provide the equipment, general interest in the viewing of worth-while films is stimulated among service club groups and other groups in that particular community.
We should remember also that various organizations representing important groups in the country are solidly behind the program for bringing good films to the local communities. I need only refer to such activities as citizens' forums, the farm forum, labour organizations and farm organizations to indicate that each one of these groups has made an outstanding contribution to the
Supply-National Film Board success of the films for the masses program which has made such headway during postwar years. I would suggest to those responsible that if we are going to have any objectivity at all in this government-sponsored film production program, the closest liaison should be maintained with those organizations representing all cross-sections of Canadian public opinion.
The question has already been put to the minister tonight as to the membership of the advisory board that is supposed to have made the recommendation for the move to Montreal. Several times during the contribution by the Minister of Public Works he said that the final decision was based on the recommendations of the board of directors of the national film board. I would be intrigued to know whether there is a representative, for example of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the C.C.L., the T.L.C., or other organizations on that board, because I think if you are going to keep in touch with the real needs of the community in so far as film production is concerned, that can be done only through the closest possible co-operation with these groups.
Whenever a government assumes direct responsibility for mass media of communication, no matter how deeply saturated in democratic traditions that government may be there is always the danger that the mass media will be used to manipulate public opinion for political purposes. The very fact that the national film board moved forward so rapidly during the war is indicative of the success that can be achieved by the use of this media in influencing public opinion. I remember the impact that the outstanding "Canada Carries On" series made upon the people of Canada in wartime, as the national film board endeavoured to stimulate interest and enthusiasm in respect of the war effort.
The matter of distribution is largely out of the hands of national film board officials, and has moved to voluntary groups, consisting largely of film councils in co-operation with university extension departments. I think that is all to the good.
To bring my remarks to a conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Some hon. members on the other side say "hear, hear". They do not like this. To bring my remarks to a conclusion I wish to refer again briefly to the recommendation I made during the hearings of the committee back in 1952. At that time I asked, if it was necessary to change the location of the film board, why a city like Winnipeg could not be considered. At the time I put forward this suggestion it was
2612	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board regarded as facetious by members of the committee. But, judging from the reasons for the move given by the minister tonight, I think the capital city of the keystone province has all the qualifications necessary to carry on an adequate film production program.
First of all the explanation was put forward that only Toronto and Montreal provide sufficient talent resources. It was my privilege to visit the present building housing thq national film board-I believe it is down on John street-and, moving through the various departments, it was almost like old home week, because located there were many westerners who had been caught up in the great migration from the prairies. This is a subject often discussed in the house, the problem of rural-urban migration. As I say, it was almost like old home week.
The city of Winnipeg is unique as a cultural centre in Canada. In addition to its geographical location in the centre of Canada it is the home of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, the outstanding activity of its kind in the dominion. It boasts the world's greatest musical festival, one that is recognized in other countries outside Canada. It has an outstanding symphony orchestra. Its theatrical productions are featured regularly on drama programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One could mention many individual artists-and I think particularly of Donna Grescoe, the great Canadian violinist -who had their origin in the city of Winnipeg, in the keystone province.
The argument has been offered here that the main emphasis by the national film board is to appeal to the rural audience. I understand that 20 per cent of the production budget will go into the manufacture of films for consumption by our rural audiences in isolated centres. I cannot see for the life of me how operating in Montreal is going to cater to the group who most need these additional cultural facilities, namely our rural audience.
The only talent that seems to exist in abundance in the city of Montreal is a superabundance of Liberal members. And-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Looking at the situation logically, without emotion or bias, it seems to me that the presence of this sort of talent might have had more to do with the decision than the cultural talent to which our attention has been directed. One further word regarding the suitability of other parts of Canada as compared with Montreal.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Is the hon. member serious in his assertion that Winnipeg would provide as good talent of a bilingual nature as can be provided in Montreal?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was coming to that. Winnipeg is unique as a prairie city in that cultural duality is strongly represented there in the city of St. Boniface, which has all the characteristics of French-speaking Canada and, in addition, has that unique exuberance and creativity that is peculiar to the western provinces of our great dominion. And so from every aspect-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall be finished in two or three minutes. If we must shift, must we think only in terms of Ontario or Quebec? Let us think in terms of other parts of Canada which merit consideration. If we are really going to develop Canada as a strong nation among the family of nations in the modern world, we must think in terms broader than the city of Toronto or the city of Montreal.
Returning to the main topic for discussion, I emphasize as strongly as I can that I am vigorously opposed to any move of national film board operations from the city of Ottawa. We have established our national capital here. The recognition of Ottawa as a national capital is gradually being accepted in other parts of Canada and the world. Such a move is definitely not in the best national interests.


Robert Henry Winters: Apparently the hon. member has changed his mind.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is my last sentence. I also suggest that the provision of adequate facilities for the national film board could be done with a much more economical expenditure than that indicated in the estimate.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the resolution with respect to vocational training, the resolution with respect to the Pension Act, and then the Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And Thursday?


Walter Edward Harris: On Thursday we hope to have the resolution with respect to the Bank Act on the order paper. If so, the Minister of Finance will speak to that, and after that we shall continue with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 3, 1954