1954-03-17

ST. PATRICK'S DAY MR. MCIVOR    GREETINGS TO MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OP THE HOUSE

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, on behalf of the Irishmen in this house and in other places I should like to extend to you, and to all those over whom you preside, greetings on this great day; and my wish for you is that you may have success and happiness so that at the end of your day it can be said, "Well done, good and faithful servant."


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his good wishes, not only for myself but for all members of the house. I think we will take his advice and ever pray to St. Patrick for his blessings.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Zapliiny:: 1.	What quantities of wheat were purchased from the Canadian wheat board by Canadian and/or American milling companies, based in store Fort William-Port Arthur, on each of the following dates: February 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 1954 and March 8, 1954?
2.	What was the average price per bushel paid for such purchases on each of the above dates?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to disclose its position with respect to sales during a current crop year.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


FEED WHEAT PURCHASES
Mr. Zapliiny:: 1.	What quantities of wheat were purchased from the Canadian wheat board, for the purposes of feed, based in store Fort William-Port Arthur, on each of the following dates: February 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 1954 and March 8, 1954?
2.	What was the average price per bushel received for such wheat on each of the above dates?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to disclose its position with respect to sales during a current crop year.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


MARRIED WOMEN EMPLOYED
Mr. Purdy:: 1.	What is the approximate number of married women whose husbands are employable, included in the civilian working force of Canada?
2.	What is the approximate number of married women whose husbands are employed, included in the total of those applying for jobs through the unemployment insurance commission?
3.	What is the approximate number of husbands whose wives are employed, included in the total of those applying for jobs through the unemployment insurance commission?


Mr. Gregg:: 1. The estimated number of married women in the civilian labour force in Canada was 387,000 in January, 1954. The number of these whose husbands were employable is not known.
Source:	Dominion bureau of statistics'
labour force survey.
2 and 3. Information not available.



TRANSPORTATION FATALITIES

Mr. Knowles:: What is the rate of fatalities (a) for Canada: (b) for North America, or for whatever portion thereof for which figures are available, per one hundred million passenger miles travelled (or other available base) for each of the following modes of transportation: (i) by train: (ii) by commercial regularly scheduled air services; (iii) by commercial bus routes; (iv) by automobile?


Mr. Dickey:: Rate of passenger fatalities per 100 million passenger miles:
(a)	for Canada, 1952; (1) By train, 0-06;
(2)	By commercial regularly scheduled air services-domestic, nil; international, nil;
(3)	By commercial bus routes, not available;
(4)	By automobile, not available.
(b)	for United States of America, 1952*; (1) By railroad passenger train, 0-04; (2) By scheduled air transport planes, 0-35; (3) By commercial bus routes, 0 * 16; (4) By passenger automobiles!1) and taxis, 2-8.
(q Drivers of automobiles are considered as passengers.
Source: "Accident Facts, 1953 Edition" published by national safety council, Chicago, Illinois, page 77.



ARTHRITIC AID

Mr. Gillis:: 1.	How many hospitals in Canada offer arthritic aid as a specialty?
2.	What are the names of such hospitals and where are they located?
3070

Questions


John Horace Dickey: I should like to answer this question orally. The information requested by the hon. gentleman as to hospitals in Canada which offer arthritic aid is not available. However, the dominion bureau of statistics in their 1953 hospital schedule have asked each hospital to report if an arthritic clinic is (a) operated by the hospital or (b) operated by other agencies. The tabulation of the answers to the 1953 schedules will not be available for about three months, but at the end of that time the information should be available to the hon. gentleman and the house.
(e) Hard-surfaced roads built to date- 13-0 miles. Cost by fiscal year: (hard surfacing only)
1949-	50	
Nil1950-	51	
Nil1951- 52	
$ 218,0231952-	53	
Nil1953-	54	
Nil

3.	Prince Edward Island National Park
(a)	Established-National Parks Act, chapter 43, 1936.
(b)	Area-7 square miles.
(c)	Total expenditures-$1,284,193 to De-



MARITIME NATIONAL PARKS

[Stage Direction]
cember 31, 1953.
Mr. MacLean:: What is (a) the date of founding: (b) the area; (c) the total amount spent since founding; (d) the amount spent each year since 1945; (e) the amount of hard-surfaced road built to date and the cost in each of the three national parks in the maritime provinces?


Mr. Winters:: 1. Cape Breton Highlands National Park
(a)	Established-National Parks Act, chapter 43, 1936.
(b)	Area-390 square miles.
(c)	Total expenditures-$5,449,993 to December 31, 1953.
(d)	Expenditures by fiscal year:
(d) Expenditures by fiscal year:		
1944-45 		$ 22,867	
1945-46 		24,883	
1946-47 		39,260	
1947-48 		45,847	
1948-49 		125,204	
1949-50 		127,019	
1950-51 		162,617	
1951-52 		153,689	
1952-53 		128,005	
1953-54 (Dec. 31/53)	109,703	
		 $	939,094
(e) Hard-surfaced	roads built to	date-
) - 4 miles. Cost by fiscal year: (hard surfacing		
only)
1944-45 	$ 48,979	1949-50 	. Nil	1945-46 	54,383	1950-51 	. Nil	1946-47 	118,881	1951-52 	. 81,783	1947-48 	105,372	1952-53 	. 23,052	1948-	49 	
1949-	50 	
1950-	51 	728,163 696,628 1,273,100	1953-54 	. 21,995 	
$	126,8301951-	52 	
1952-	53 	
1953-	54 (Dec. 31/53)	331,457 311,211 350,645	CANADIAN NATIONAL Mr. Knowles:	RAILWAYS	BASIC	PENSION

(e) Hard-surfaced roads built to date-nil. Cost-nil.
2. Fundy National Park
(a)	Established-Order in council P.C. 1300, March 31, 1948 pursuant to the provisions of the National Parks Act of 1937.
(b)	Area-79J square miles.
(c)	Total expenditures-$3,133,406 to December 31, 1953.
(d) Expenditures by fiscal year:	
1948-49 		$ 539,625
1949-50 		871,556
1950-51 		834,890
1951-52 		469,700
1952-53 		219,012
1953-54 (Dec. 31/53)	198,623

1.	Has any provision yet been made for any increase in the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
2.	Has any reconsideration been given by the government at any time since the matter was last discussed in the House of Commons on May 12, 1953, to increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, discussed with the government the possibility of the amount of the said basic pension being increased? If so, are there any records of such discussions?
4.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to approve of the Canadian National Railways increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what was the government's answer?
5.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to take the responsibility for providing an increase in the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what reply has the government made to any such request?

6.	If no decision has yet been taken on this matter by the government, is the matter now under consideration?


Mr. Chevrier:: I should like to deal with this question orally. There has been no change in the position in regard to an increase in the basic pension granted to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways since it was fully discussed in the house and in the railways and shipping committee in 1952, nor have representations been received from the management of the railway on this question. The answer to each of the six parts of this question would be no.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Regier:: 1.	What were the receipts of the unemployment insurance commission for the month of December 1953?
2.	How much money was distributed during December 1953, to the unemployed under the terms of the act?
3.	What were the receipts for the year 1953 of the unemployment insurance commission?
4.	What were the benefits paid to the unemployed under the terms of the act during 1953?


Mr. Gregg:: 1 and 3. The amounts credited to the unemployment insurance fund are as follows:
December 1953	Year 1953
Employer and employee contributions $13,886,442	$159,355,393
Government contribution $2,773,905	$31,867,604
Interest and miscellaneous

Total

$18,969,042 2 and 4. December 1953

Benefits paid
$216,834,530 Year 1953



$157,869,183 ANNUAL LEAVE  LETTER CARRIERS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have any circular orders been issued by the Post Office Department, dated since February 18, 1954, advising letter carriers as to arrangements for annual leaves following the institution of the five-day 40-hour week?
2.	If so, how many of such circular orders have been issued, what are their numbers, and what were their dates of issue?
3.	What are the terms of such orders in relation to the arrangements for annual leaves for letter carriers?
4.	Did a subsequent order alter the terms of an earlier order? If so, in what respect?
5.	Do the terms of the latest order alter the established practice of annual leaves for letter carriers being arranged on the basis of seniority?
Questions
6.	If so, have protests been received against any such change?
7.	From whom?
8.	Has consideration been given to such protests? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
9.	Will the practice of annual leaves for letter carriers being arranged on the basis of seniority be reinstated?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1 to 9.
To ensure the successful application of the five-day 40-hour week certain modifications of previous practices are essential. These changes are not derogatory to the general principle of the selection of annual leave by seniority in length of service.
The adoption of the rotation scheme whereby supervisory carriers relieve men on each of several walks in turn, from a standpoint of practical application, necessitates annual leave being taken within groups of 12 or 13 employees.
Two circular orders were issued; the first OBPS 299 of the 19th February outlining the application of annual leave on a basis of seniority within the group without regard to rank; the second OBPS 299D of the 26th February modifies the first and recognizes the supervisory rank of the supervisory letter carriers, indicating that seniority would be arranged first on a basis of rank and then the remainder of the employees on the basis of length of service.
Protests have been received from the national office of the federated association of letter carriers and also from several individual branches protesting against the supervisory class being given a choice of annual leave ahead of those letter carriers who wish to deliver on a single walk only and who do not wish to apply for or accept supervisory responsibilities.
Consideration is being given to this protest, and if it is possible to adopt the absolute rule of seniority within the groups that will be done. However, the basic requirement is that the interests of the public service must predominate.
Information so far received indicates that to give effect to the five-day week on April 1, 1954, it may be necessary to grant the holiday choice privilege to supervisory letter carriers at least at certain offices.



MICHEL SISCO

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Is Michel Sisco alias Antonine D'Agostine a Canadian citizen?
2.	If not, has he applied for citizenship?
83276-195J

Questions
3.	Has he been given any permit to stay in Canada?
4.	If so, on whose recommendation?
5.	When did he enter the country?
6.	Did he have a passport in his possession?
7.	If so, authorized by what government?
8.	If not, how did he enter the country?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	No record of entry.
6.	No information.
7.	Not applicable.
8.	Not known.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


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


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
(1) 14 (Pensioned under C.N.R. plan prior
to 1935).
(2)	3,200.
(3)
(a)	$ 25.01	to	$ 29.99	per	month	______ 1,018(b)	$ 30.00	to	39.99	per	month	....	644(c)	$ 40.00	to	49.99	per	month	________ 395(d)	$ 50.00	to	59.99	per	month	________ 198(e)	$	60.00	to	69.99	per	month	....	95(f)	$	70.00	to	79.99	per	month	....	87(g)	$	80.00	to	89.99	per	month	....	36(h)	$	90.00	to	99.99	per	month	....	29(i)	$100.00	to	124.99	per	month	....	44(j)	$125.00	to	149.99	per	month	....	15(k)	$150.00 or over per month	
17
2,578
(4)
(a)	$	25.01	to $ 29.99	per	month..	380(b)	$	30.00	to	39.99	per	month..	1,835(c)	$	40.00	to	49.99	per	month..	1,515(d)	$	50.00	to	59.99	per	month..	1,118(e)	$	60.00	to	69.99	per	month..	1,047(f)	$	70.00	to	79.99	per	month..	1,002(g)	$	80.00	to	89.99	per	month..	940(h)	$	90.00	to	99.99	per	month..	806(i) $100.00 to 124.99 per month	1,519(j) $125.00 to 149.99 per month	960(k)	$150.00 or over per month	1,450
12,572



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Balcom:: What was the total expenditure made on the Halifax airport at Eastern Passage during each of the last five years on (a) maintenance; (b) extension and improvements?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I have spoken to the hon. gentleman about this question and he has agreed to have it amended so that the phrase beginning with the word "during" would read:
during the fiscal years from April 1, 1950, to December 31, 1953.
With that amendment I should like to ask that it stand as an order for return.


NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	With the exception of the publications intended for the reading rooms of the Senate and the House of Commons, how many subscriptions to newspapers, reviews, magazines or other publications are paid by the government for the benefit of the employees or other persons interested in the administration?
2.	How many in each department?
3.	What total amount was paid for that purpose during the last fiscal year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I spoke to the hon. member for Chicoutimi about this question and pointed out to him that the government did not pay for subscriptions to newspapers, etc., "for the benefit of employees or other persons interested in the administration", but only for the public service. If those words could be dropped and "in 1952-53" inserted in their place, this question could stand as an order for return. I understand the hon. gentleman is agreeable.
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member accept the correction suggested by the minister?


Mr. Gagnon:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

(Text):


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all correspondence that passed between any department of the government of the United States and any department of the government of Canada, and a copy of all agreements entered into, since the 1st day of January, 1952, in Connection with the St. Lawrence waterway and power project.


Mr. Claxton:: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is now en route from Washington and will arrive in Ottawa this evening. I would therefore ask the hon. gentleman to allow this motion to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


HAROLD C. BANKS
Mr. Hamilton:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, recorded telephone conversations or any other communications or documents, from January 1, 1947 to date, relating to the case of Harold C. Banks:	(a)
between the Minister or Department of Labour, the Minister or Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister or Department of Justice, and/or any other person or persons, corporation or government; (b) between any two or more of the above mentioned ministers or departments.


Mr. Harris:: Subject to the usual reservations, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the
statement by the minister.


SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS
Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all letters, communications, briefs or memoranda received by the Minister of Finance, or received by any other minister and referred to the Minister of Finance, dated at any time since January 1, 1952, from associations or organizations representing superannuated federal civil servants, or from any officers thereof, together with a copy of the replies of the Minister of Finance thereto.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether there is any possibility of the finishing marble for the Vancouver post office being obtained in Italy. I ask that because there is grave concern over this matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no prior
notice of this question, except that the hon. member was kind enough a moment ago to show me a telegram he received relating to this matter. I will be very glad to look into it and bear in mind the point he has raised.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Will the minister explain why circular order 299D superseded order No. 299 and deprived regular letter carriers of their seniority in the matter of annual leave in favour of the supervising staff?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive prior notice of this question, but I believe it is similar to the question asked a few days ago. This question is now under consideration by my officers in the department and I shall be glad to report on the matter as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the minister has told me twice already.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister say when I may expect the return which was ordered on February 25 and which it was intimated might be available this week?


Walter Edward Harris: It is available, though it has not come to my desk as yet.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Can I expect it tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: I hope so.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?

Gold Mining
Will the minister comment on the published statement in yesterday's Globe and Mail, a copy of which I sent him, to the effect that the Canadian government, through radio, press and employment offices in Holland, is advertising for workers in the metal industry in Canada, and will the minister tell us where this employment is available?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of the announcement in the Globe which contains the statement he describes. The actual situation is that this is a letter to the editor from a person in Welland and we are attempting to obtain information from him about that letter. The short answer at the moment, however, is that the Canadian government does not advertise in any form in Holland and I do not believe this is occurring as indicated in the letter.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
ADVERTISING OF CIGARETTES AS LOSS LEADER^
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has any investigation been launched by the combines investigation branch into the question of the advertising of cigarettes as loss leaders? When will that investigation be launched, and is it the intention of that branch to have sittings across the country in reference to this matter before a report is brought in?


Hon. Siuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has asked this question without giving prior notice, and his words are rather peculiar. He asks, "Has there been launched an investigation into the advertising of cigarettes as loss leaders?" There has been an investigation going on for some time into the general subject of loss leaders, as has been announced in this house; and that includes cigarettes as well as other matters. It probably will include advertising of cigarettes as well, although I would not like to say without notice that it does. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter and if it is necessary to amend the answer I have given today I shall be glad to do so.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 376, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


Mr. Fleming:: Does the minister intend to make a statement on second reading?


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to the statement I made on the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the minister be kind enough to wait until hon. members who have duties to perform outside the house leave their seats?


George Prudham: The bill before us proposes to extend emergency gold mining assistance for the year 1954. Several hon. members asked questions during the debate on the resolution and I would prefer to wait until we reach the committee stage before answering those questions. However, there was one question in particular which perhaps I should answer at this time. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) asked if a mine benefited under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act during a strike. In calculating emergency gold mining assistance payments to a mine, two factors have to be considered:	first, the rate of assistance,
and secondly, the number of ounces produced which made that mine eligible for assistance. It is obvious that if there is no production there can be no gold eligible for assistance and therefore no payments during that period. Administrative or overhead costs, or anything which is normally considered an overhead cost, are not eligible for gold mining assistance payments during the period of a strike. In other words, a mine cannot benefit in any way whatsoever from the gold mining assistance during the period of a strike. The rate of assistance is calculated on the cost of production, assuming that there was a full year's operation. That rate is applied only to the assistance ounces eligible. When there is no production, there is no gold eligible for assistance.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why this bill should be unduly held up at this moment. However, I just wanted to answer certain statements which were put on the record by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) with regard to the earnings of gold mining companies. Of the 53 straight gold mines which are at present in production, the average yield is rather less than per cent on the present price of the stock. May I say that that yield is considerably under the yield of any group of manufacturing stocks or that on stocks of any other producers of primary products. As to dividends paid, for the straight gold mines in 1953-that is the 53 straight gold mines which were producing-the average dividend was 15 cents. If one excluded the McIntyre mine

which is now more of an investment trust than a gold producer, the average dividend would fall to 9 cents. I merely wanted to put these facts on the record in order to show that today the gold mining industry is not making profits and is virtually scraping the bottom of the barrel.
As to wages, while the wages paid in the straight gold mining industry are less than those paid in the base metal mines, nevertheless they compare favourably with and are very much higher than the average of industrial wages across Canada. I have the statistics in front of me but I will not burden the house by putting them on the record. However, they are here in the dominion bureau of statistics' statistical review and in the Labour Review.
There is one other comment I should like to make with regard to wages in the gold camps and it is this. The cost of living in the settled camps is considerably lower than that in places such as Sudbury or the industrial centres of southern Ontario and industrial Quebec. Rents are lower. The cost of living generally is lower. Hence, after the cost of living has been taken out, the balance position of the gold miner at the end of the month is, I submit, little if at all inferior to that of the worker in any other industry in Canada.
I think that is all I wish to say on the bill now, Mr. Speaker. As I said yesterday, we support it. I will not repeat anything I said yesterday on the matter. I merely wanted to correct a statement which I believe can be shown to be untrue.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this bill. When speaking earlier on this subject I made it clear that we would support this bill. There are, however, certain things that we think should be taken into consideration at this time.
When speaking on the resolution yesterday I emphasized the fact that among those interested in the gold mines in the north there was a growing demand for the setting up of a commission or a special committee to consider the present status of the gold mining industry. As I indicated then, there is a great deal of confusion with regard to that status. The mine owners have certainly succeeded in selling to the government, to the press and to the Conservative party the idea that gold mining is a depressed industry at the present time. The mine owners succeeded in persuading the public, through the press, that last winter they could not afford to pay the increased wages asked for by the miners nor to introduce shorter hours for the work-week which is now a 48-hour
Gold Mining
week, notwithstanding the fact that six conciliation boards under the chairmanship of Mr. Eric Taylor, Judge Lane, Judge Fuller and Professor Curtis, after examining the financial statements of these mines, had all found that, in their opinion, the mines could afford to grant the increase in wages asked for and a shorter work-week, and so recommended in their report.
There is also some confusion as to whether or not this act is fulfilling the purpose for which it was intended. In the report on the administration of the act, we are told this: The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act of 1948 was primarily designed to assist the high cost or marginal gold mines to continue operations throughout the difficult post-war period.
There is a question whether the act as it stands at present, and with the present regulations, meets that need. There is some doubt as to the extent to which the public funds paid to the gold mines does that. This year these funds will probably amount to about $13 million. From a return handed down, I gather there is another cost of approximately $65,000, that being the cost of administering the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Finance. As handed down in the return in my name, the total cost of administering this act in 1953 would be approximately $65,000.
With so much public money going into the industry, it is certainly relevant to ask whether the miners and the communities affected are receiving the benefits from this act or whether the benefits of this public money are being siphoned off in profits to directors, shareholders and mining stock speculators. Charges have been made and evidence has been given before conciliation boards to the effect that neither the miners nor the communities have benefited from the funds which the federal government has provided. That is one reason why I think there should be a more thorough investigation of the whole situation.
The act purports to exist for the purpose of assisting high-cost or marginal gold mines to continue operation. Actually, in 1952, of the $10,359,000 paid in gold subsidies $1,390,000 went to two mines, Hollinger and McIntyre. In that year sixty-one mines applied for subsidies. Approximately $9 million was divided among the remaining fifty-nine, whereas the lion's share of the subsidies certainly went to the two largest gold mines.
The question arises whether or not these mines were deliberately budgeting for a deficit on their operations in order to take the fullest possible advantage of the subsidies paid by the federal government. There

Gold Mining
is some evidence from their reports that unusual quantities of low grade ore were used with the higher grades in order to maintain minimum production from the ores mined so that the greatest possible benefits could be derived from the subsidies. There are other equally important questions which I think can only be solved by a thorough-going investigation of the whole gold mining industry in relation to the general economy of the country. I would urge the minister to take that into consideration.
I was very happy to hear from the minister that no subsidy could possibly be paid for gold that was not produced and that the mines could not benefit from the subsidy while they were on strike. I want to point out to the minister my reason for believing that such was possible by referring to section 6(1) (d) of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act which provides as follows:
. . . where the operation of a mine is suspended during part of a designated year for a reason specified in the regulations . . . payments may be made ... in such amount as would have been payable ... if the mine had been in normal operation throughout the designated year . . .
Then I turn to regulation 15 of order in council P.C. 2664 of June 11, 1948. This regulation includes suspension of operation by strike and provides in part as follows:
. . . assistance payments may be made for the gold actually produced during the year in such amount as would have been payable in respect of that gold if the operation of the mine had not been suspended . . .
Those who have given considerable study to that regulation, including some auditors, have reached the conclusion that it would appear that if operations were suspended for thirty days only the period of thirty days would be treated as if there had been no suspension, but where suspension of operations is more than thirty days then it would seem that at least part of the cost to the company of suspension of operations is included in the costs for the purpose of determining the assistance payable under the act.
I have before me sessional paper 78-B which purports to be a copy of the report made by the cost inspection and audit division of the office of the comptroller of the treasury with respect to Hollinger for the year 1951 during which year the mine was on strike for fifty-eight days. I find that the production for the designated year 1951 was 241,429.898 fine ounces. I also find that the production for the designated year 1951, if the mine had not suspended operations, works out by the application of the formula to 287,004.167 fine ounces, which is about 46,000 more than the number of ounces actually produced. Then I find that in working out the assistance

ounces, if the mine had not suspended operations, the figure 287,004.167 is used instead of the figure of 241,000, which was the actual production for that year.
From that return it would appear that in that particular case some advantage accrued to the mine for the period of fifty-eight days during which it was closed down. I am quite sure that everyone interested will be very happy to have the public assurance of the minister that mines cannot profit from this act when they are on strike. I would point out to the minister that that is fair. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act no employee may collect unemployment insurance while his firm is on strike, and it is only fair that the same rule should apply to employers and that they should not be able to benefit in any way from federal revenues by reason of the fact that they are on strike.
I would ask the minister to have his department look over that return, sessional paper No. 78-B, entitled "Cost Inspection and Audit Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury," dated August 14, 1952, in which the number of assistance ounces was calculated as I have indicated. It may be that the minister can show me from that calculation that Hollinger did not benefit in any way from those fifty-eight days. I will admit that the formula is a very complicated one, and it would take someone as conversant with it as the minister himself to be able to tell us whether or not that is true.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
only want to speak for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) yesterday and today put very well the point of view of this group, and the questions in which we are particularly interested. I do not see, therefore, any particular reason for repeating his explanation and his arguments.
There are many miners in British Columbia interested in this legislation. As a consequence representatives of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers came to Ottawa and made representations on behalf of their members in Canada to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). I may say that union has represented the hard-rock miners in British Columbia since 1896, so it has had considerable experience with the problem of miners and particularly with those of the gold mining industry.
When in Ottawa the union representatives presented a brief to the ministers in question, and I understand they received a courteous and careful hearing. As a result of their

experience they made certain representations. I am not going to deal with the brief at length but I should like to read the final recommendation from the statement and proposals adopted by the sixth Canadian convention of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers, for submission to the government of Canada. The proposal reads, and I support it:
Finally, we urge that a federal inquiry be undertaken into the gold mining industry in Canada, with the right of all interested parties to appear before the inquiry board, to give evidence and make proposals to assist the industry and for the advantage of the workers employed in it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this point. It is obvious from the situation that has developed in the gold mining industry in recent years, and it is obvious from the minister's remarks that the industry is not in the condition today that the government expected it to be in when this measure of assistance was first introduced. There is a great deal of uncertainty. The workers in the industry are not satisfied with their conditions. They have no sense of security. I should like the minister, when he concludes this debate, to give consideration to this recommendation, which I believe was previously mentioned by the hon. member for York South. It seems to me to be a sound recommendation. I should like the minister to inform the house if he would recommend to his colleagues that an inquiry into the gold industry in Canada be undertaken by the federal government, in view of the situation illustrated by recent events, this debate, and by the remarks of the minister upon introducing the bill from year to year when renewal of the measure was under consideration by the house.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: The gold mining industry would be in a very different position today were the price of its product in relation to the prices of other commodities comparable to the prices which prevailed before the second world war. Unfortunately, it is the other way around. The price of gold was kept down to the 1934 basis of $35 in United States currency and the cost of production has gone up.
In view of this, it must be realized that the industry has no other alternative but to accept government assistance, even if this assistance is short of compensating for the rise in production costs. An advance in the price of gold is the only permanent solution to the problem of the gold mines, but as Canada is not the largest producer or seller of the precious metal we cannot dictate the price or influence the buyers by refusing to sell. We are faced with this problem, that
Gold Mining
the price of gold can only be raised by joint international action for which the initiative rests with the United States.
Canada would certainly stand to gain from an increase in the official price of gold. Not only would a higher price be of direct benefit to the Canadian gold producers and those dependent upon them, but by increasing the United States dollar value of gold the official reserve held outside the United States would ease some of the exchange difficulties and lead to an increase in Canadian export. However, the price of gold is not something that our government alone has the power to determine. The predominant position of the United States, as the world's largest holder and buyer of gold, means that the value the United States government places on gold in terms of its own currency is the official world price. Only lately our influential friends to the south have again stated that the price should stay at $35 in United States currency, and that is all there is to it.
We are all aware that the production and sale of gold is of great importance to the Canadian economy. Until there is an increase in the price, we must agree that the government will have to continue to assist the industry. Let us review what has happened to the gold mining industry in Canada during the past years, and more particularly since 1948 when the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act came into force. Let us see if the government has so badly invested the Canadian taxpayers' money, if the gold producers have abused the assistance received, and if the miners and other people dependent on the industry have not benefited by it.
It is not my intention to take the time of the house to review the causes for the seriously handicapped operations of the gold mining industry in Canada since the early years of world war II. However, let me say that during those years the gold producers were sharply restricted in supplies, equipment and manpower. The volume and dollar value of production were reduced to practically one-half by the end of the war. During the years immediately following the end of the war rapidly mounting costs pressing against the ceiling of a fixed price for gold brought the industry to a precarious position. The figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics show that the operating costs of Canadian gold mines have risen by 35 per cent during the period between the year 1941, when the price of gold was $38.50 an ounce, and the year 1948 when the price of gold was $35 an ounce. Since 1948, when cost aid was instituted, the upward trend of costs has been particularly marked. During the period between 1948 and 1951 wages

Gold Mining
rose 32-3 per cent, costs of supplies 34-7 per cent and freight costs close to 50 per cent. Those three items of cost together constitute 84 per cent of the total cost of operation of the average gold mine.
After 1951 the upward trend has continued, and we can say that during the past eight years the gold mines have been waging a hard battle. They have tried to maintain production in the face of rising costs, with no offsetting increase in the price of gold. The most recent report published by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys shows that for the year 1952, of the 56 lode gold mines which were in receipt of cost aid, thirty-five are reported as having costs in excess of $35 an ounce, sixteen are reported as having costs in excess of $30 an ounce, and only five are reported as having costs between $25 and $30 an ounce.
From this it will be realized that the majority of the gold mines would be unable to maintain production at the current price of gold, without assistance; and that sixteen pther mines are in a precarious position, where costs and revenue are about in balance. In that same report which I have just mentioned we find that from 1948 to 1951 inclusive at least 50 per cent of the gold mines in receipt of cost aid have been reported as having costs in excess of $35 an ounce.
To alleviate the disastrous effect which the Canadian gold mining industry and the communities dependent upon it were suffering, as a result of the closing vise of mounting costs against a fixed price, the government introduced in 1948 this legislation, which we now hope will be extended to the end of 1954.
As previously mentioned, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was sanctioned in 1948, and it was to stay in force for three years. In 1951, 1952 and 1953 it was extended and amended and each time a bill was introduced in the house to this effect there was very little or no opposition. This time it looks to be the same thing; but there are insinuations that there has been abuse of this assistance, that it did not benefit the miners and communities dependent upon the industry.
Before I present some facts which will prove that the assistance provided by the government did benefit the miners and mining communities, I wish to go back to the debate which took place in 1948 during the second reading of the bill respecting emergency payments to assist in meeting increased costs of production of gold. I wish to refer to some of the remarks made at that time by the leader of the C.C.F. party. This is very important, Mr. Speaker, because at that time

the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) did not oppose the measure which was then before the house; but he made certain observations and did insist that the said measure was acceptable only under certain conditions.
As reported at page 2675 of Hansard for April 6, 1948, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had this to say:
I think this can be justified only if we accept certain considerations which should be fundamental to the granting of any subsidy of this kind, namely that the subsidy should not be used for the profit of the owners of the mines but should be granted only if we have not merely an understanding but a definite undertaking that the men engaged in the mining industry are paid decent and sufficient wages and work and live under decent and proper conditions.
And later the hon. member had this to say:
May I say to the minister I have been told that when the representatives of the unions discussed this matter on one occasion with one of the ministers, I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), he was willing to accept the suggestion that some sixty per cent of the grants made by the government under a measure such as this should be used for the improvement of conditions of labour and of health, and the rates of pay of the men engaged in the industry.
And again:
In any event, whatever we do in matters of this kind should be done with the distinct understanding, and, as I said, on the distinct undertaking, that a proper proportion of whatever aid is given shall be used for the improvement of conditions among those who risk life and limb and health in the mining of gold.
From what I have just cited, I suppose I am right in saying that the leader of the C.C.F. party gave his approval of the measure then before the house subject to certain conditions: First, that the men engaged in the mining industry were to be paid decent and sufficient wages; and second, that they were to work and live under decent and proper conditions. And I presume that I am right also in saying that it was proposed to accept the suggestion that some sixty per cent of the assistance to be granted by the government was to be used to this effect.
Well, Mr. Speaker, after what was said in 1948, it is appropriate that the house be informed for what purpose the assistance provided to the Canadian gold mines by the government under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was used.
First of all, what portion of the assistance went to pay increases in wages and salaries? In 1947, the average annual wage of a miner in a Canadian gold mine was $2,277. The corresponding figure for 1948 was $2,537, an increase of 11-4 per cent. For 1949, the average wage was $2,650, an increase of 16-4 per cent over 1947. In 1950, the average wage

of a miner was $2,765, an increase of 21-3 per cent over 1947. And in 1951, the average wage was $3,013, an increase of 32-3 per cent over 1947.
During the period for which figures are available from the dominion bureau of statistics, that is from 1948 to 1951 inclusive, we find that the total increase in wages and salaries paid by the gold producers is equivalent to 99-7 per cent of the total assistance paid by the government.
That is substantially more than 60 per cent. The total assistance paid to the industry during that period amounted to $41,404,000, while the increase in wages and salaries totalled $41,281,302. During the same period the industry paid $26,666,000 in federal, provincial and municipal taxes, which alone represents 64 [DOT] 4 per cent of the total assistance received by the gold mines.
During that same period of four years between 1948 and 1951 the total amount of wages and salaries paid by the lode gold mining industry amounted to $254,082,000. The aggregate cost of supplies, plant, equipment, buildings and machinery amounted to $220 million. Those figures are interesting and it is most important that we take them into consideration.
While wages and supplies and freight are the principal items of costs in operating gold mines, they are by no means the only factors which contribute to increase costs of operation.
In addition account has to be taken of improved health and welfare services, increased rates of workmen's compensation, and many other items which in total amount to substantial sums.
And we must be reminded of this. The gold mining industry is the only industry which has to absorb these increases into the costs of operation without being able to pass on to consumers any portion of such increased costs.
Now as to the working and living conditions in the gold mines and in the communities. Are they as bad as some people try to make us believe they are? Are the gold producers so uninterested in the welfare of their employees as to do nothing about it? Are they trying to evade municipal and school taxes as we are being told?
The answers to those questions can be found in safety records and annual municipal reports which are available to whoever wants to look at them. If one looks at these reports he will find that the industry has done everything possible to improve health and welfare services in its operation and that it has
Gold Mining
co-operated in the best possible manner with municipal authorities to improve living conditions in the mining communities.
The mining producers across Canada are fully conscious of the importance of safe workings in the mines. They know very well that safe mines enjoy better labour relations with their employees. And in this respect the Canadian gold mines are not lagging behind, as you will be able to note from the following.
The Canada-wide contest sponsored by the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, under which the John T. Ryan trophies are awarded annually to the mine in Canada with the lowest compensable accident record, resulted in a most creditable way for the Ontario and Quebec gold mines during the last five years.
In 1948 the winner of the trophy with the best safety record of all the metal mines in Canada was the Toburn Gold Mines of the Kirkland Lake district. In 1949 the trophy was awarded to Matachewan Consolidated, another mine in Ontario. In 1950, the John T. Ryan trophy travelled across the interprovincial boundary to be awarded to Sigma Mines Limited in Val d'Or, Quebec. And in 1951 and 1952, Canadian Malartic Gold Mines Limited won the John T. Ryan award for safety. This gold mine, which is located in my home town, had not one single compensable accident during 1952. This record is probably the best in Canadian mining history. What an extraordinary record for an industry where, according to some people, working conditions are supposed to be so bad.
Mr. Speaker, our gold miners do their jobs with care and ability; they are safety conscious, and in this respect they are encouraged and seconded by those in charge of management. What I have just said should be sufficient to show that, as far as good working conditions are concerned, the gold mines and the miners are, if anything, showing the way to many other industries.
Now as regards this question of dividends which are paid quarterly, semi-annually or annually by the gold mines. What about this famous question? Is it a crime for an industry to pay a dividend? What about the shareholders? Are they to forgo the revenues which are rightly due to them? The answers to these questions are as follows.
First of all the net revenues of all the gold mines are at a very low ebb. The gold mines which did not alter their dividend rates are those which are not in receipt of cost aid. Or whatever dividends are being paid these days by most of the gold mines are taken from surplus earned from other

Gold Mining
sources than their actual operations. Others are squeezing their dividends from accumulated surplus earned during the good years before the second world war. And many other gold mines are not paying any dividends at all. How long they will be able to continue to do that, we do not know. And for how long will they be able to ask their shareholders to be patient? They certainly cannot tell them that this is the new way of operating a business.
From 1948 to 1952 inclusive, out of 27 Quebec gold mines which received assistance from the government 15 never paid any dividends. Five others paid less than $230,000 each during those five years. The six remaining gold mines paid dividends on a reduced rate and it is important to note that during that same period those six gold mines paid more than $27,000 in increased wages alone, over and above what they received in assistance from the government.
The shareholders in the Canadian gold mining industry are many thousands and the great majority of them are small shareholders. We must keep that in mind, and I will go as far as to say that the government, both in its role of tax collector and in its role of representative of the broader interests of all Canadians, has the responsibility to hang on to the gold mining industry; and hanging on means helping the shareholders, the employees, the small property owners, the farmers and the business people dependent on gold mining to hang on.
I also wish to remind hon. members that the gold mining industry, important as it is, is only one branch of the metal mining industry of this country which gives employment to some 130,000 men who in turn are the supporters of more than 500,000 people. So in trying to establish some comparison between the assistance allocated to the gold mines and that which is granted to other key industries, it would only be fair to keep those figures in mind.
The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is plain evidence of the government's recognition of the importance of the gold mining industry in the national economy. It is the intention of the government to ensure, so far as lies in its power, the condition under which the industry may have not only continuity of operation but the possibility and hope of extensive development.
The welfare of the gold mining communities has always been regarded by the government as of very great importance. For this I wish to express my thanks. The fact that this government has definitely come forward with the present legislation is encouraging 
to the industry and to the residents of the gold mining communities. We are all very thankful.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this. Let us consider this question calmly, and let us not forget that the closing down of the industry would mean the uprooting of families, the abandonment of towns which have been built at the cost of many millions of dollars and which are complete with all the facilities of modern living. There are 30 such mining communities across the country and they are providing ready and important markets for farm and lumber products, manufactured commodities and many other kinds of supplies.
This great wealth and economic activity would be jeopardized by the closing down of the gold mines, and it is up to this parliament to safeguard them. In discussing this bill we have to keep these facts in mind, and if we do I believe this legislation will meet with the approval of all hon. members.


Mrs. Ann Shipley (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill I believe I should first correct some of the statements made and impressions left by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) when he spoke in this house on November 20, yesterday, and again today. You will recall that he stated at that time that he was qualified to speak on this subject as he had worked at every process in gold mines from mucking to milling. It must have been a long, long time ago. It is very evident to me that he has no appreciation whatever of the seriousness of the problem facing the gold mining industry in Canada today.
The hon. member professes to be gravely concerned with the plight of the workers and the communities, but he proceeds to do as much harm as possible to the industry on which they are all, almost solely, dependent. Many of his remarks were completely unwarranted, and many were divorced from fact, as will be shown by the information I propose to place before hon. members today, and information which has already been placed on record by other speakers.
I believe it might be well if I dealt with the hon. member's statement as reported at page 485 of Hansard in which he said:
What precautions are taken by the government to ensure that these mines are not deliberately keeping their mill heads low in order to mill their low-grade ore while the government subsidy is available, and sealing off their higher grade ore until such time as they can get a higher price for gold or a higher subsidy from this government? I have met miners in northern Ontario who told me their job has been to seal off high-grade ore whenever it was discovered and to keep it for future

development, while the low-grade ore was fed to the mill and emergency gold mining assistance used in order to pay for part of the cost of that milling.
It will be noted that this hon. member and certain other people quoted in the press to the same effect have not named one single mine. However, I would ignore that statement because to those of us who are really familiar with gold mining it is a ridiculous statement, though just a little complicated to answer because the act itself is not readily understandable unless you sit down and study it.
When this statement was made I was a little amused because I immediately had a vision of men running around underground with a bucketful of cement and a trowel and covering up high-grade gold nuggets. Then I realized it is possible that people might believe such a statement. I am therefore going to answer it in such a way that I hope no one could possibly believe it again.
One of the saddest things about the gold mining industry is the fact that once you have mined in a specific area and abandon it you cannot ever go back and mine in that same area again. It is much too dangerous and in a period such as this when costs are so high, and the price of gold is so low, every day in every gold mine in Canada it is necessary to by-pass ore, or what is known as waste rock, because you cannot economically mine it, though there is a substantial amount of gold in it. If the price of gold were commensurate with our dollar today it would be good ore rather than waste rock, and since there is not too much gold in the world, it is a pity we have to lose it. However, that cannot be helped.
Mining is a very difficult engineering problem. It takes long-term planning and it is essential that a mine management arrange the digging out of the proven ore bodies underground in such a manner that they maintain a constant millhead. In other words, they endeavour to send up from underground each day the kind of ore which will have approximately, when it is all mixed together, the same amount of gold; otherwise they would have to change their solutions, and do all kinds of complicated things that would run up costs. It is not a question of grabbing it from here today and from there tomorrow. Furthermore, the act is drawn in such a manner that it would not be advantageous to leave high-grade ore and mill low-grade ore. Under the act assistance is based on two factors, the cost of production and the number of ounces produced. The cost of production for the purpose of the act is defined as "the cost incurred by the operator properly attributable to the gold produced from a
Gold Mining
mine during that particular year". The number of ounces on which the subsidy is paid is defined as the number of ounces by which the number produced from the mine and sold in the designated year exceeded one-half of the number of the ounces produced from the mine in the base year, or to one-half of the number of ounces produced and sold in the designated year, whichever is the greater.
Suppose we assume that any mine management would deliberately leave high-grade ore in the ground and mine only low-grade ore in order to run up costs and thereby receive a larger subsidy, as suggested by the hon. member. Just what would be the net result to the shareholders of the mine? The higher subsidy is based on the actual proven costs of production of an ounce of gold. It must be obvious to anyone that if you bring up two tons of rock out of the ground and treat it to obtain one ounce of gold, where formerly you brought up one ton to get one ounce of gold, then your expenses will be doubled. How could you have any net gain by receiving a slightly larger subsidy per ounce, especially when the subsidy does not begin to compensate for all of the increased costs, and is only paid on a part of the total ounces produced in any specific mine?
Let me give hon. members a concrete example of what would actually happen to a specific mine if it did what is suggested by the hon. member for York South, or if their present grade of ore petered out. I take for this example the Kirkland Lake Gold Mining Company Limited-that is one in my own community-and I use their actual experience in 1952. During this year they produced 44,828 ounces of gold. Their costs of production were $36.02 per ounce. They received approximately $177,000 in assistance. Their profit, before taxes, was approximately $125,800. What would happen if they deliberately or otherwise reduced their grade of ore by as little as 5 per cent? Their costs would be greater per ounce recovered so their assistance would increase slightly. If this had actually been the case, they would have received $6,061 more in subsidy. But do not forget the fact that the grade is decreased by 5 per cent, so they would have 2,240 fewer ounces to sell. Therefore on their total income for the year they would actually lose $70,817 by reducing the grade just by 5 per cent. In other words, their profit for the year, before taxes, would become $54,987 instead of approximately $125,000 as it actually was. This with only a 5 per cent reduction in the grade of ore.
I want to carry this idea just one step further. If the grade were reduced by 10 per cent, the cost of producing an ounce of gold

Gold Mining
would have been increased by $4 an ounce and the subsidy would have been increased by $10,000; but the company would have had a net loss of income for the year of $143,767 by reason of the 10 per cent lower grade. So instead of making approximately $125,000 profit before taxes, as they did, they would have actually been in the red by $17,963 on the year's operation.
The only object in mining is to obtain a profit from a given body of ore, and the main problem in achieving this purpose are keeping costs down and the grade up. The government officials responsible for the drafting of this act should be complimented.- At first glance it appears to be complicated, but in operation it has proved to be most adequate to assure sound administration and fair distribution of the subsidy.
One of the major problems facing all but a few of the gold mines is to find enough high-grade ore in order to continue operations at all under existing circumstances.
On the same subject of subsidy paid to the industry the hon. member inferred, at page 487 of Hansard, that the mines could receive the maximum cost aid on all of the gold produced, which for 1953 was $13.50 per ounce, making a total per ounce that the mines would receive of $48.50. He cites the case of one mine-listed in this blue report from the department-which received the maximum for 1952. But he failed to mention that that was a new mine and had operated for only a portion of the year. This is provided for in the act. But all other mines receive the subsidy on only a portion of their production, as I have just explained. In other words, a mine in its first year of operation receives subsidy on its entire production for that year only; thereafter it receives subsidy on 50 per cent of its next year's production or 50 per cent of the previous year's production, whichever is the greater. This should have been known to the hon. member as he was at the time quoting from the report of the administration of the act.
One who is really interested in the subsidy paid to Canadian lode gold mines on the total ounces produced has but to read the averages published in the same report at pages 10 to 12. They are as follows:
1948		$3-27
1949		 3-42
1950		 2-33
1951		 3 29
1952		 3-91
That figure of $3.91, however, may be greater when the full returns are in. This is the average subsidy to the industry when the total gold produced by the lode mines receiving subsidy is taken into consideration. This

is a completely different picture from that inferred by the hon. member for York South.
During this five-year period the gold mines suffered a loss of approximately $4.23 per ounce of gold produced, by reason of the appreciation in the Canadian dollar over the United States dollar. The costs of production still kept mounting during this period but the average subsidy paid per ounce did not even offset the drop in the price of the finished product.
It is of interest to note that there were only two new mines in all Canada in 1952 in receipt of subsidy, as shown in the report of the administration of the act. There were none in 1953. If the mines were "making a killing" as a union officer was quoted in the press as saying the other day, or if the statements made by the hon. member for York South have any logic, how do they account for the many mines that have been forced to close, or for the fact that there are no new gold mines being opened for the first time in many years?
In an effort to prove that this is not a depressed industry, as reported at page 487 of Hansard, the hon. member for York South refers to the profits paid by two mines out of all those in Canada, one of them being McIntyre, when it is well known that only a portion of their profits is earned from the current gold mining operation. As to the other one, Broulan Reef, he states specifically that this is one of the mines which received cost aid in 1952-and if I am not mistaken he stated that twice-and yet made a large profit. This is just not so. They did not receive one cent of cost aid in 1952. They are one of the lucky mines that ran into extremely high-grade ore and they were selling on the premium market, so-called, in 1952.
Citing the number of dollars profit made by any particular mine means little unless accompanied by the number of tons mined daily, the number of men employed, the number of shareholders and the amount of stock issued and, finally, the number of years that the mine had to operate before it showed any profit at all. As an example, one of the mines in my community operated for many years-I think it was almost 20-before it was in a position to make any profit whatever.
The other day I quoted some figures that bear repeating. An analysis of the gold mining industry in Ontario from 1941 to 1951 shows that 35 per cent have discontinued operations; 74 per cent of the profits of the industry have been wiped out; 40 per cent fewer men are employed. The picture would be worse today. In the face of these facts, how can anyone say that this is not a depressed industry?

Again, the decline of the industry, in spite of cost aid, is shown very clearly in the report of the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. In 1948 there were 87 lode gold mines in receipt of cost aid; in 1952 there were only 56. There were 13 selling on the "premium market" in 1952 and one that had not filed a statement at the time the report was published, making 17 lode gold mines closed during this five-year period.
As a further item bearing on this point, I quote from a statistical summary of the Bank of Canada showing the net operating profits of a representative group of Canadian gold mines. They picked out the group; I did not. In 1940 the profits were $58-4 million. In 1950, ten years later, the profits were $18-5 million. Of course, in 1950 they were in receipt of cost aid.
From the Canadian Metal Mining Association I also have some figures showing the estimated handicap per ounce incurred by Ontario lode gold mines during the periods shown, and this excludes any increase in tax rates which have doubled since 1939. From 1939 to September 1952, increase in operating costs per ounce, $11.93; reduction in price received for gold, $4.90; estimated total handicap without increase in taxes, $16.83.
These are but some of the actual facts that prompted the government to introduce the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The hon. member also made statements with respect to wages and the use of the subsidy. I must read hon. members what he said, as found at page 485 of Hansard of November 30. He said:
I am merely pointing out that if the government finds it necessary to subsidize the gold mines, then some measure must be taken to see that this benefit from the public treasury goes to the miners and the community, and is not all siphoned off in profits for shareholders and speculative stock buyers.
Again, he said, as found at page 487:
There has been no increase in wages in gold mining in Ontario and Quebec since 1951.
He also said:
Are we as custodians of the taxpayers' interests to stand idly by, or to sit idly by, while gold mine operators pass on all the cost aid they can possibly extract from this government to profits, with coldblooded, calculated indifference alike to miners and mining communities? I suggest that the basis on which cost aid is given be reviewed in order to make certain that miners as well as mine owners benefit from these federal subsidies.
The Labour Gazette shows that the annual average wages in Canadian gold mines were as follows: 1950, $2,765; 1951, $2,992 and 1952, $3,107. Ontario and Quebec between them produced 89 per cent of the total gold produced in Canada. Therefore I think it is conclusive from the figures that some increases must have been paid since 1951.
Gold Mining
But the following figures apply to Ontario alone and show that the statement with respect to no increase in Ontario is absolutely wrong. Furthermore, they prove conclusively that the statements made by hon. member for York South with respect to the subsidy being used to increase profits and none of it being used to increase the wages of the workers are entirely without foundation in fact-quite the contrary.
I should like to refer first to the Northern Miner and figures covering eleven mines in the Porcupine area. They show that during the period January 1, 1948, when the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act came into being, to the end of December, 1952, these eleven mines in the Porcupine area received almost $11J million in subsidy. But note this. For a slightly longer period, from January 1, 1948, into 1953 the amount paid out by these mines in increased wages was $16,365,000. Almost $5 million more was paid out in increased wages by these eleven mines in the Porcupine area. It is true that the $5 million does include the increase paid in 1953, but that did not amount to $5 million.
I have other figures that are better in that they cover the exact period. I have figures covering three mines in the Porcupine area, Dome, Delnite and Preston East Dome, for the identical period from January 1, 1948, to December 31, 1952. They received $3,425,205 in cost aid and paid out in wage increases during the same period $4,514,085. In other words, they paid out $1,088,000 more than the total subsidy they received. For my own camp, the Kirkland camp, I have figures for every single one of the mines still operating. Unfortunately several of them have had to close down. I have figures for Macassa, Kirkland Lake Gold, Sylvanite, Lake Shore, Wright-Hargreaves and Teck-Hughes. I can give individual figures if desired but otherwise I will give totals.
They received $3,471,759 in subsidies during those five years and paid out in wage increases during the same period $5,370,876, $1,899,000 more than they received in total subsidies. Of course where there were profits-and there is no point in a mine staying in business if there are no profits-they would not even receive the total subsidy because they have to pay taxes on it. I have given total figures and not what individual miners received. It cannot be said there were more men employed and therefore these millions I have told you about that were paid out in excess of the subsidies are accounted for because there were more men. The reverse is true. There were fewer men. The Ontario department of mines shows in a report that in 1941 there were 19,500 men

Gold Mining
employed in the gold mines of Ontario and that in 1952 there were 11,800 men employed. In other words, there were 7,700 fewer men in Ontario alone. Yet the hon. member says there is no depression in the industry.
Let me say one more word about wages. At the time the price of $35 per ounce was established it was adequate for the sound development of the mines and to pay top wages. The following figures are taken from the annual review of employment and payrolls, dominion bureau of statistics. Just yesterday the same hon. member said, as recorded at page 3033 of Hansard:
But never at any time in the history ol gold mining in this country have those who actually mine and mill the gold received their fair share of the wealth produced from the mines.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Hear, hear.


Marie Ann Shipley: These figures show the average weekly earnings in gold mining and certain heavy manufacturing industries in 1939 and 1952. The other industries are iron and steel products, transportation equipment, non-ferrous metal products and electrical apparatus and supplies. In 1939 the gold mines of Canada paid $34.10 per week on the average. That is $6.86 a week more than the highest paid in any of the other four heavy industries referred to in the bureau of statistics report. That is why I say that when we did receive an adequate price top wages were paid. In 1952-I think this is very significant-we find that the gold mines *of Canada paid an average wage per week of $63.21, but we find that only one other heavy industry in the list paid any more. The non-ferrous metal products industry paid an average of $63.88 but the others paid less. Electrical apparatus and supplies paid $60.86. They have no difficulty with respect to the price of their finished products, nor do any of the others.
On the one hand the hon. member for York South claims that the gold mining industry is making enormous profits by reason of the subsidy, and on the other hand that they are leaving their high-grade ore in the ground. This just does not make sense, particularly when the increased wages alone since the act came into being have cost most of the mines more than the total subsidy each mine received. Such statements as those made by the hon. member for York South create a false impression and do not contribute to a full and sympathetic understanding of the problems of the gold mining industry and the thousands of Canadian pioneers and the communities almost solely dependent thereon, for whom he expresses such concern.

It is not generally understood that almost all gold mining municipalities would not exist if it were not for the mines. We cannot attract secondary industries for a variety of reasons, leaving us almost solely dependent on the one industry. These mining communities were literally hewn from the forest and rock. Our mortgages on our homes, if we can get them, and our municipal debentures are all for a shorter period because of the nature of our industry, and in the early days rates were very much higher than elsewhere in the country.
In a gold mining community the costs of sanitary facilities are excessive because we live in a cold climate. My own community, for instance, is built on solid rock, and you all know the cost of excavating rock as compared with soil. The cost of our fuel is greater up there. We are a very young part of the country, and in 1939 the birth rate at Kirkland Lake was the highest in Canada. This made it necessary for us to build schools every year, and you all know the cost of that. We were paying for everything at once. Our communities are very young, and we have to pay for schools, churches, sanitary facilities and so on, all at once and in a shorter period of time.
These things we accept as part of our way of life. You never hear us complain about them. We built these communities, and almost everything most of us own is invested there, our homes and our businesses. The owners of the mines are not a handful of wealthy men as some would lead us to believe. They comprise thousands of small investors, the miner himself, the butcher, the baker, the housewife and no doubt even some members of parliament. During the war our experienced gold miners enlisted in great numbers. Some were required in the base metal mines to increase the production of strategic metals. Our women continually produced more materials for the Red Cross than any other group in Canada.
Those things we did gladly, but what of today? What does the future hold? There is no simple answer to our problem except a much higher world price for our gold. This solution is beyond the control of any one country or government. If it is feasible, and in the national interest, I know this government will press strongly for such a solution. Canada has done much to keep the gold mining industry alive through the establishment of emergency gold mining assistance. By the terms of the bill now before us, the government proposes to continue that assistance for another year. If disaster is not to overtake our gold mining communities from one side of Canada to the other, adequate

assistance must be given. What "adequate assistance" means can only be determined by a factual analysis of the operating costs. In the meantime, the passing of this bill will tide us over.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have listened with considerable interest, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) in her attempt, shall I say, to steal the halo from the head of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and put it on the head of the mining operators of this country. I was not able to follow the bewildering array of statistics that she paraded before this corner of the house, but I should like to point out one fact in defence of the hon. member for York South. I am quite sure he is able to take care of himself, but she mentioned a statement he made that the workers in the gold mining industry had never, at any time, received a fair share of the wealth they produce. She made certain comparisons with certain other industries. All I would say is that, so far as I can recall, the hon. member for York South did not say he considered the workers in these other industries had received their fair share of the wealth they had produced, either. Perhaps in inferring that he was suggesting the operators of gold mines were, to a greater degree, more greedy than the operators of some of our other industries, she was creating a slightly erroneous impression.
I was somewhat interested in her earlier remarks when she spoke of someone going around with a trowel and sealing off certain sections of the mine. Speaking as one old miner to another, I would suggest that there were one or two things she may have overlooked in her consideration of this particular aspect of the matter. Apparently she has never heard of the idea of blocking off reserves of ore or of a diamond drilling program which may serve to indicate where certain sources of rich ores may lie.


Marie Ann Shipley: I am sorry, I did not say that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is just the point, Mr. Speaker, I said that was what she did not say. Perhaps the miners in Ontario are not as wise as the miners of British Columbia in certain mining techniques. To illustrate what I mean, I recall that back in the 1930's a certain large mine in British Columbia, which is known primarily as a producer of copper, found itself in a position where for a period of two years they were not able to sell a pound of copper. I am speaking only from memory now. This mine continued to operate on a somewhat reduced scale all during that period. They managed
Gold Mining
to do that because of the superior mining technique that we have in British Columbia.
They knew that in certain areas of that mine there were ores that had a considerable gold content. They concentrated their mining in those particular areas, and paid their operating costs out of the gold that was normally a minor incidental to their production. However, I am not going to attempt to go into a detailed analysis, as I said, of that array of statistics that was given to us.
I was quite interested in the remarks that were made by the member who spoke before the hon. member for Timiskaming. He gave us an interesting outline of some of the economic factors that exist today in the gold mining industry. As I sat listening to these two speakers, the main point that struck me was that they were on the horns of a dilemma. Since coming to this house I have all too often seen the members on that side in a similar dilemma. They are the victims of the sort of patchwork policy the present administration seems to be content to pursue in dealing with the various economic problems that arise in this country.
In referring to that, I would suggest that there is a limit to the number of patches you can put on anything. When you start putting patches on the patches, and then patches on the patches on the patches, you begin to get a sort of Joseph's coat of government policy such as we see developing now. This bill, like some of the other bills that have come before us in the short time I have been here, illustrates to me the dilemma in which the government is. Incidentally, of course, the members in the small opposition groups are in a dilemma also. If we do not support this measure, it is said, the gold miners are going to go hungry, and that is quite true. For that reason, we cannot do anything else but go along with this idea that assistance to the gold mines, under existing circumstances, is necessary. Sometimes when you listen to the array of statistics showing the moneys granted over a period of years you begin to ask yourself, how long is this going to continue? Are we going to extend this thing next year and the following year- for the next fifty years-or are we not? Why do we keep the gold mining industry operating in Canada, if it has to be subsidized? Those are questions that any thoughtful member must ask himself when a bill of this kind comes before the house.
I have to admit that some of my interest in and knowledge of the gold mining industry dates from the period referred to as the great depression; and I have wondered if possibly the government is continuing this measure, for the support of the gold mines, as a form

Gold Mining
of depression insurance. Because many of us can recall that in the days of the great depression there was one small sector of our economy in which there was no depression; and that was the gold mining industry: there was a boom there. Everyone connected with gold mining was prosperous, relatively speaking. The only difficulty was that perhaps only one in a hundred of the people who would have liked to get in on the gold mining industry were able to do so.
I have come to this point because, as I say, this is another example of the dilemma we find ourselves in. We had one not so long ago when we were discussing a measure concerning anti-dumping provisions for the protection of certain other industries in Canada. Then, reference was made recently to the dilemma in which the coal mining areas of the maritime provinces find themselves today. I felt that in view of all these facts it would be worth while for me to rise in the debate and once again draw attention to the point I brought out during the debate on unemployment.
As reported at page 2386 of Hansard for February 23, I said:
I suggest it is time to do something more than review our unemployment insurance plan. It is time for the government ... to launch a new insurance plan, one which I would call re-establishment insurance. This plan would cover those people the Acting Prime Minister has advised to go elsewhere to seek work. It would insure them against the loss of their homes, and against having to walk away and simply leave behind everything they have accumulated over a period of years. It would be a plan which would cover retraining these people in another industry.
I mention this because, if such a comprehensive plan were in existence, we might be able to view the present measure in an altogether different light. Under those circumstances we could proceed intelligently with an inquiry into the gold mining industry, as was suggested yesterday by the hon. member for York South. We could analyse the situation impartially, to ascertain whether the continuance of this industry for the next fifty years, under the present uneconomic conditions, would be warranted and in the national interest. We could decide whether we really need gold in our modern economy.
But because I know, as every other member knows, that if this measure is not passed the lives of thousands of people-I believe the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) gave the figure of 500,000 people- will be disrupted, and that many would suffer complete economic disaster, we have to continue to go along with this kind of patchwork measure.
When we think of this industry, and then think of the textile industry, and the possibility of the same sort of thing developing

in other industries, the necessity for some well-thought-out plan to take care of this situation becomes more and more apparent. That, Mr. Speaker, is my primary reason for taking part in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the minister speaks he will close the debate.


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, I rise now especially to thank those who have indicated their support of the bill, and would refer particularly to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) for the wealth of information they have given the house this afternoon. I should like also to deal with a few statements made and questions asked by various members.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and others have suggested that a commission should' be appointed to make an inquiry into the gold mining industry. I would remind hon. members that this parliament has no direct jurisdiction over the development of our natural resources. That comes within the constitutional rights of the provinces. They have the control of the administration and the development of resources within their own boundaries, and also labour regulations and the conditions obtaining within their jurisdictions.
I believe in all of the provinces facilities are available for collective bargaining. Any group of employees or any union has the privilege of entering into collective bargaining arrangements with management, and thus reach mutually satisfactory agreements. The suggestion has been made that we should look ahead' as far as fifty years. I do not think that is a reasonable suggestion. Indeed, I am sure it is not, when one considers that the actual development of our resources does not date back much more than fifty years. I believe any policy adopted by the government and parliament has to be flexible enough to meet changing conditions.
We think we have seen development in Canada in the last few years; in my opinion we have not seen anything yet. This country is just starting to move. Conditions as we know them today will be entirely different next year or the year after. I know my friends of the C.C.F. are dedicated to the socialization of our resources. But the people of Canada are not; otherwise we would have more C.C.F.'ers here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Heaven forbid.


George Prudham: The suggestion has been made that some mining companies are blocking off large sections of high-grade ore in order to cash in on gold mining assistance. The hon. member for Timiskaming answered that quite effectively; but I have some figures that I think answer conclusively. I have before me the average grade of ore milled by gold mines in Canada since 1942. The average grade of ore mined by all gold mines in Canada was as follows:
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
Ounces per ton [DOT]240 [DOT]240 [DOT]230 [DOT]230 [DOT]230 [DOT]240 [DOT]230 [DOT]230 [DOT]230 [DOT]220
The figure for 1951 is the latest we have. There is clearly only slight variation in the grade of ore milled by gold mines in Canada in those years. My hon. friend mentioned Hollinger gold mines, and in that case the average grade of ore mined by Hollinger in 1942 contained .252 ounces of gold per ton, while the figure for 1952 was .282 ounces. The average for the period was -249 ounces. The average production of gold per ton has increased at that mine. I have the figures for other mines which I can give during the committee stage.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) referred to the number of people who would be disrupted if the gold mines were to go out of business. The hon. member for York South suggested that there would be hundreds of thousands and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned 500,000. Actually there are between 21,000 and 22,000-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was quoting a figure
suggested by another hon. member.


George Prudham: The actual number of
people working in the mines is somewhere between 21,000 and 22,000, but of course there would be their families and their communities dependent upon them. I admit that it would be a disaster if the gold mines had to close, but I question whether there would be actually hundreds of thousands of people directly involved in any such disaster.
The hon. member for York South suggested that two mines received a large proportion of the gold mining assistance paid. Two mines received approximately $1,300,000 of the $10,359,053.90, or about 12.5 per cent of the total amount paid. However, they produced
Gold Mining
511,670 ounces out of a total of 2,638,032 ounces, or about 19 per cent of the gold produced during that period.
As I said in my remarks the other day, the gold mining industry as a whole, including labour and management, has responded to the challenge. Their costs of production have been reduced progressively since the war and in my opinion they have done a good job in helping themselves. As I have said before in this house, when an industry shows that it is doing everything to help itself, that is a good reason why the government should consider extending aid over a difficult period. I have told the coal miners that and I believe the same rule applies to the gold mines. When they show that they have gone all-out to help themselves, I think there is justification for government aid in an emergency.
This is not a patchwork policy, as the last speaker has suggested. As the title of the act implies, this aid is to meet an emergency which we hope will be of short duration. The chief reason for extending emergency gold mining assistance last year and this year was and is to compensate to some extent for the loss to the mine because of the appreciation of the value of the Canadian dollar in terms of United States funds. That situation fluctuates from time to time and we do not know how long our dollar will remain in that favourable position. If it should change there would be less need for aid to the gold mines.
The hon. member for York South asked whether the mines are making excessive profits. I think the fact that 40 mines have closed since the beginning of emergency gold mining assistance with only 27 new mines being opened-some 13 of those new mines have since closed-is pretty good evidence that no excessive profits are being made.
I believe that many people overlook the fact that the development of our mining resources is a co-operative effort. It requires the co-operation of a number of groups of people. One group that is often overlooked is the investors. The mining industry at best is a depleting industry. When you remove ore from the ground it will never be replaced. If we are to develop our mining industry we must attract risk capital by showing a reasonable chance to make a profit. When the flow of risk capital dries up, your industry dies just as surely as if the men stopped working. With all the mines closing last year-there were 6 gold mines closed with no new ones being opened-I think that is the best evidence that excessive profits are not being made.

Gold Mining
I should like to answer a query by the hon. member for York South about the formula used as reported in a sessional paper in regard to the Hollinger mine. Even for the experts this gold mining assistance formula is not simple in operation and I do not wonder that my hon. friend is confused. I have had difficulty in following it in particular instances. The explanation I have for the point which he mentioned is that to get the calculation for the assistance payable per ounce of gold produced a mine is considered as being in operation during the whole year. The same result would be obtained by prorating the base year for a similar period for which operations were not suspended and using the actual production. The method of calculation is set out in the regulations and I want to assure my hon. friend once again that it gives no advantage to a mine during a period of a strike.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Application of act to 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, before we pass clause 1 I would like to say a few words. I regret very much the minister has taken the position that because the federal government has no jurisdiction over natural resources he does not choose to consider the setting up of a committee or commission to study the gold mining industry. I had hoped that, in view of the fact that the government of Canada was involved to the extent of well over $10 million per year in the form of subsidies, that would give the government an interest in such an inquiry. In fact, I believe such an inquiry would be beneficial both to the industry and to the miners and the mine owners.
That is evidenced by the honest difference of opinion regarding the status of the gold mining industry at the present time. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Timiska-ming is just as honest and serious in her views regarding the status of the gold mines as I am in mine. The difference of opinion which exists between us is not only reflected in this house but is to be found between employees and employers and their respective organizations. It is to be found as between the chairmen of conciliation boards and representatives of the miners and mine owners.
But I am confident that if the premier of Ontario carries out, as I hope he will, his agreement with the steel workers union to establish a provincial committee on a very high level for the purpose of undertaking a

thorough factual investigation of the gold mining industry, and if he will invite federal representation on that committee, and the federal government agrees to be represented there, nothing but good can result from such an investigation.
I was, of course, very interested in some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming and I would like to congratulate her on the fighting attitude which she has adopted in the interests of those who sent her to parliament. I am quite sure her efforts will be appreciated by her supporters. I would simply say to her that I would be very happy at any time to set forth my point of view compared with hers at a public meeting in her own home town of Kirkland Lake any time she chooses to arrange such a meeting. I will be quite happy to allow the miners of that town to decide which point of view is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It sounds like suicide.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I was, of course, amused by her statement that miners did not go around with trowels covering up gold nuggets here and there. I had hoped that the hon. member for Timiskaming was much more conversant with mining operations, and knew that gold from northern Ontario is not dug out in nuggets, but is saturated through tons of ore brought into the mill. Permit me to inform her that I doubt if there is very much about gold mining she can teach me. There is no process in gold mining operations, from mucking underground to refining, in which I have not participated at some time, so that I know something of what can be done by way of sealing off high-grade ore bodies when that becomes advantageous.


Marie Ann Shipley: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if he would mind stating when he last worked in a gold mine?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, miners who are engaged in this kind of work and doing diamond drilling in the mines informed me no later than a few months ago that some mines at least are sealing off high-grade ore.


Marie Ann Shipley: That does not answer my question.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not saying-


Marie Ann Shipley: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member is not answering my question.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not going to give the hon. member the names of the individual miners-


Marie Ann Shipley: My question was, how long ago did you work in a mine?


Joseph William Noseworthy: It was some time ago, Mr. Chairman.


Marie Ann Shipley: But how long ago?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have visited these mines regularly-


Marie Ann Shipley: How long ago did you work in a mine?


George Prudham: The hon. member has the protection of the House of Commons and I would ask him to name one mine which does as he suggests. I do not suppose he would dare to do so outside the house.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I do not care to give the names of the individual miners who gave me that information. The minister, for example, must know that McIntyre has reserves today which are probably of a higher grade and more extensive than this mine has ever had over the years.


George Prudham: Would the hon. member like to have the assay figures of the ore they have milled over the years?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am simply asking the minister to make certain that mines are not running undue quantities of low-grade ore through their mills-


George Prudham: You said they were.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -and salting it down with a small percentage of high-grade ore in order to mill much of their ore, which would otherwise be uneconomic, because of this subsidy. I am simply asking the minister and his department to make quite certain that is not being done. I realize there is always a question of just what policy will be in the best interests of the future life of the mine, and the future interests of the country, and just to what extent mines should be encouraged to continue uneconomic production. However, these are matters which, I suggest, a commission of investigation should be able to determine.
I am not surprised that mines pay more out in wages than they receive in subsidy, but I do not think it was ever the intention of the government that the subsidies they pay should cover the whole cost of wages. Nor am I surprised that there has been an increase in wages since 1947. Miners' wages were pretty low at the end of the war. Gold mining wages were fairly low at the end of the war. The fact still remains that, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, the average annual wage of gold miners in Canada was $1,343 as of June 1, 1953. The average annual wage of base metal miners across Canada on that same date, according
Gold Mining
to the dominion bureau of statistics, was $1,701. Therefore, notwithstanding any increases and notwithstanding subsidies, up until last June the gold miners were still far behind base metal miners in the matter of wages received. If gold mining is not profitable and if the mines cannot afford to pay to miners wages that are equivalent to those paid in, let us say, base metal mining or comparable industry, then the responsibility for making up that deficit must of necessity, I think, fall upon the country at large and not upon a particular group of employees.
If what the mine owners say is true and if the present subsidies are not large enough to enable them to pay to gold miners wages equivalent to those paid in base metal mining, it is possible that the subsidy should be increased. I do not know. But certainly if the mine owners' claims are true and if they cannot afford to pay the people in the gold mining industry as well as miners in the base metal industry are paid, then something should be done to make that possible. It is not fair to ask these miners to bear the loss incurred by the fact that the mine operators are operating an industry where the costs continue to rise and where the price of their product is fixed by governments. I am not quarrelling with the act or with the necessity for it. What I am asking is that there should be a thorough investigation of this industry. If these subsidies are not large enough, they should be increased. Certainly the miners should not be left in the position they are in today.
I am happy to hear the hon. member for Timiskaming defending the mine owners for their communities' support. I have heard municipal authorities complain that these gold mines were not bearing their share of municipal taxation. I am quite sure that it will be encouraging to know that the hon. member for Timiskaming, who has a great wealth of experience in municipal affairs, views their support with such a high degree of admiration.
In view of the very fact that under this act, the minister tells us, forty mines have been forced to close and so few mines have come into operation, and the fact that, of necessity, under the present act the larger producers of gold are getting the larger share of the subsidy, is it not worth considering whether or not this act is doing the job that it was intended to do, namely, that of helping some of the smaller mines? Is it rendering to the smaller mines-those that are operating at high cost-the assistance that it was originally intended it should render? Those are questions that I think we should consider. I greatly regret that the minister

Gold Mining
undertakes to shelve the whole matter by accepting the excuse that the federal government has no jurisdiction over natural resources.


Mr. Fulton:: I just wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions. I do not want to interrupt the train of argument. If the minister wants to reply now, I can wait.


George Prudham: I should like to finish the matter and to answer now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Go ahead.


George Prudham: The hon. member for York South still seems to insist that some of the mines are probably withholding high-grade ores, hoping to cash in on the emergency gold mining assistance. He suggested that perhaps we should look at McIntyre. I happen to have here the figures showing the average grade of ore milled at McIntyre mine from 1935 to 1953. The figures are as follows:
Ounces of Gold
Year	per ton
1935		 -294
1936		 -280
1937		 -286
1938		   -279
1939		 -287
These grades were during the years when the price of gold was quite favourable.
Ounces of Gold
Year	per ton
1940		 -283
1941		 -291
1942		 -289
1943		 -294
1944		 -302
1945		 -305
1946		 -292
1947		 -297
1948		 -314
1949		 -297
1950		 -289
1951		 -287
1952		 -280
And for the first nine months of last year the same recovery per ton was shown, namely [DOT]280. The average for the whole period was [DOT]290. If the grade had been increased last year to -290, McIntyre mines would receive $12,079.02 less in emergency gold mining assistance. An increase in production of 5,588 ounces of gold would have been valued at $195,582.83; that is at $35 an ounce. If, on the other hand, the grade had been lowered by -01 ounce per ton, McIntyre mines would receive $9,634.06 more in assistance. The decrease, however, would represent a decrease from sales of gold of $206,280.16.
This shows very clearly that it would be unprofitable to lower the grade of ore unless

it was necessary to do so on account of conditions in the mine. You just cannot win by low grading or hoping to collect on the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. As the grade of ore decreases the number of ounces decreases. You have the two factors, the rate of assistance applied to the number of eligible ounces. It is not possible to beat this provision. I hope the figures I have taken the time to put on the record will prove conclusively to my hon. friend that this is so. In so far as we can tell

and we are very confident-no one could beat the act, even if they wanted to, and we are confident on the basis of our inspection services that nobody is trying to.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to thank the minister for putting these figures on the record. I am quite sure they will help to clarify a situation about which there is a great deal of dispute.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I want to say something in answer to the same argument because I think it must be dealt with now. First of all may I say, in the somewhat more robust language of the north, that the hon. member for Timiskaming made a damn fine speech this afternoon. McIntyre mine has been referred to. I have been underground in McIntyre many times. Some years ago McIntyre discovered what is known as the twenty-five vein system. It is to the north of the property. It is a nearly vertical vein structure of quite high grade. It runs about an ounce per ton which is about four times the average grade at the mine.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, the ideal is to have a mill feed of constant grade running to the mill. The situation at McIntyre is that in the old Pearl lake porphyry area and the other older parts of the mine the grade may run from -15 to [DOT]2, perhaps even less than -15. This ore is mixed with a proportion from the twenty-five vein system area to bring the average grade up to what the minister said, about -29 ounces per ton.
So far as increased costs are concerned, let me take the case of Kerr-Addison. At the present time Kerr-Addison is probably the greatest gold mine in Canada and North America. Quite conceivably it may become the greatest gold mine in the world. It has a wonderful deposit of ore. Years ago before the war they cut off mining or hoisting or breaking ore when they got below -06 ounces per ton. As costs rose they stopped breaking at -07 and as they rose further at [DOT]08, -09 until now I believe any rock containing less than one-tenth of an ounce is considered waste rock.

The quantity of ore between -06 ounces per ton and -1 ounces per ton runs to many hundreds of thousands of tons, and many thousands of dollars' worth of gold is lost to Canada and to the national wealth of the country for all time. That is an example of what increased costs are doing so far as the destruction of our national wealth is concerned.
With regard to the question of sealing off, in one, maybe two, and possibly three cases that I know of an extremely high grade section was discovered and sealed oft. I think the highest grade section was discovered some years ago at the O'Brien mine in the Cadillac area. I have forgotten what it ran, but it was 20, 30 or perhaps even 50 ounces per ton over a very short distance and a very small ore chute. I am not sure how big it was but I saw the ore in place and it was just like looking at the national mint. It was a very beautiful sight. But it was a very small occurrence and to safeguard that very high grade deposit the stope was barred and locked to prevent high grading. That was some years ago.
There may have been one or two other cases. Siscoe had some high grade and there may have been other cases where, a small chute of tremendously high grade ore having been discovered, it was wired off for a temporary period simply and solely to prevent high grading until such time as the ore could be mined. Incidentally, that was a long time before the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act came into force and had nothing to do with sealing off high grade ore in order to mine low grade ore. What the hon. member for Timiskaming has said is absolutely correct. It is nothing short of ridiculous to think that any mine would seal off high grade today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions. Before doing so, I should like to say that along with my colleagues I support entirely the continuation of this act for another year. However, in view of comments which I read in the press this morning I should like to ask the minister to clear up one matter. As I understood those comments, they certainly gave rise to the suggestion at any rate that the minister had said that the government would only continue this assistance for one year, and it was represented that it was almost their intention to discontinue it after a further year. On referring to page 3030 of Hansard of March 16 I find the minister said:
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that in presenting this resolution for an extension of assistance for the year 1954 it is the government's hope that this extension will enable the gold mines to continue their operations so that eventually they may be able to carry on without this emergency
Gold Mining
assistance. It has always been the government's intention that this assistance should be only of a temporary nature.
As I read that statement, it is quite different from the conclusion I formed after reading the press comment this morning, and I should like the minister to clear up the matter for me. While appreciating the desire, which I think we all share, that as soon as possible the gold mining industry may be restored to a healthy state so that this assistance will not be necessary, is it a fact that the government has not placed any time limit on the period for which they are prepared to continue the assistance but are merely hoping they will be able to discontinue it as soon as possible?


George Prudham: I stated the government's case quite clearly yesterday, as my hon. friend indicated when he read from Hansard. We are asking for an extension of this act to the end of this year only. We hope it is the last time it will be necessary to extend it. However, as has been the case ever since 1948, we expect to review the situation at the end of the year. I am not holding out any hope it will be extended another year. I certainly hope it will not be necessary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No more significance should be attached to the fact that it is only continued for one year on this occasion than to the fact that previous extensions have also been one-year extensions. Would that be a correct statement?


George Prudham: It is up to my hon. friend as to what he infers from what I have said. When the original bill and the extensions have been before the house, we have always said that the measure was designed to meet an emergency. When that emergency is over, there will be no more need for this assistance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is another point about which I should like to ask the minister. Is it a fact that under this legislation there is no compensation to the mines for the fact that the price of their product has decreased?


George Prudham: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of this bill, to compensate the mines for the fixed price which they receive for their products.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry I did not make my question clear. There is no additional compensation under the legislation now being continued to take care of the fact that the price of gold has decreased within the last year. The hon. member for York West and the minister both placed on Hansard last night the price of gold during the current year, which appears to be $33.79 per ounce as of March 6. This represents a decline over the last year or two as a result of the increase

Gold Mining
in the value of the Canadian dollar in terms of the United States dollar. I am asking for confirmation of the fact that there is no increased measure of assistance now being offered to make up for the fact that within the last twelve months there has been a further decline in the price of gold.


George Prudham: Two years ago there was an amendment to the act to provide additional assistance. The need for the additional assistance at that time was brought about by a decline in the price of gold. It depends upon how a mine owner likes to assess his problem, whether he thinks the price of gold is too low or his costs are too high. This assistance is designed to assist the mines.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think we are getting at the point now. The minister says the amendment was introduced two years ago. Is it not a fact that the price of the Canadian dollar, in terms of the United States dollar, has increased further since that amendment was made two years ago?


George Prudham: The average mint price in terms of Canadian dollars was, in 1942 to 1945, $38.50; in 1946, $36.75; in 1947-48, $35; in 1949, $36; in 1950, $38.05; 1951, $36.85. On February 20 of this year it was $33.81 and on March 6 last it was $33.79. The price has been fluctuating. It is down from 1951, but we have increased the assistance since that time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The assistance was increased in 1952, and the figures the minister has placed on the record indicate there has been a further decline from 1952 to the present time. He did not put on the record the figures for 1952. In 1951, the price was $36.85. I think it is fair to point out that there has been an increase in the price of the Canadian dollar since that amendment two years ago, which would produce a corresponding decrease in the price of gold to the Canadian producer.
The reason I wanted to make that point was that it seemed to me the government should perhaps contemplate some further measure of assistance to take care of the continuing decrease in the price of Canadian gold. Two years ago 1 did not hear anyone seriously suggest that the measure of assistance being provided, even under the amendment, was overly generous. I think the government's attitude has been to provide sufficient assistance to enable the mines to continue in operation. If two years ago the assistance then provided was no more than enough to enable them to continue in operation, and the price of gold to the Canadian producer has declined since, does it not follow the government should be revising the

scale of assistance? I think it does. I should like to know from the minister what representations have been made on that point, and what consideration, if any, has been given to it?


George Prudham: We do not propose any increase for this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In conclusion, I should like to lay before the minister the suggestion that if the gold mines and those engaged in the gold mining industry are to be enabled to carry on on a comparable standard with the rest of the people, and particularly with those engaged in other forms of mining activity, then it seems to me we should be making some adjustment in the scale of assistance to compensate for the further decline in the price of gold since the last adjustment was made. I strongly urge the minister and his department to undertake a review in that connection, to see if they would not agree with me as to the necessity for an adjustment.
I have in mind the two quite large gold mines in my own constituency, the Pioneer and Bralorne mines. They are, as most mines are, in remote areas. There is no other town except the mine, and there are no other facilities there. They are purely mining towns. The cost of everything the people living there have to buy is high because it is a small community and supplies must be trucked in over some 47 miles of extremely mountainous road. These men are faced with the impossibility of any adjustment in their wage rates as a result of the limits on the assistance provided, and yet they are faced with a cost of living much higher than in most other communities in the country.
If two years ago the assistance was no more than enough to enable the mines to continue in operation, and the price of gold has declined since but the assistance has not increased, then it seems to me that forms a strong argument in favour of a review so that those engaged in the gold mining industry can maintain a standard comparable with those in other forms of activity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I heard with considerable interest the minister's statement a moment ago, that he looked forward to the possibility that it might not be necessary a year hence to continue this form of assistance to the gold mining industry. On what grounds does he base that hope?


George Prudham: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening remarks on the resolution, the industry has responded to the challenge, it has decreased its cost of producing an ounce of gold, and has produced more per man-day. To a large extent that has been brought about by improved methods

and increased mechanization. I do not think even the mines themselves would suggest that they have done everything or that there is no room tor improvement, as new techniques develop. I think that is the way the problem should be solved, rather than by increasing the government subsidy every time there is increased disparity between costs and sale price.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was hoping the minister would say something about the other factor which, I suggest, is much more important than either of the factors he mentioned. I refer to the price of gold. Has the minister any grounds for hoping that within the next year we may look for an increase in the price of gold?


George Prudham: I have no grounds for that hope. I am satisfied this government is doing everything possible to influence an increase in the price of gold. The hon. member for York West suggested that we should lead the world by increasing the price. Well, I do not believe anyone who gives the matter serious consideration would advocate that we increase the price of gold to, let us say, $50, and be prepared to accept all the gold that would flow into this country from all parts of the world. Fifteen million people certainly cannot become the bankers for the world. We hope that the United States some day will see fit to raise the price of gold, but we do not know when that might be; and there presently is no indication of it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 374, to control export and import of strategic materials.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the matter of governmental control over exports and imports is no stranger to the house. Export control over materials was established in 1941 under the War Measures Act, and we have had it in one form or another ever since.
The Export and Import Permits Act was first enacted by parliament in 1947. It has since come before the house, through amending measures, in 1948, in the second session of 1949 and in 1951. When the measure was 83276-196
Export and Import Permits Act first introduced it was placed in the category of measures to carry forward controls that had existed during the war. Indeed, sir, clause 14 of the bill then introduced, as it appears in chapter 17 of the statutes of 1947, contained this provision:
This act shall come into force upon the expiration of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, and shall expire sixty days from the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight.
It was put before the house at that time as legislation to deal with a type of emergency which was thought still to exist in 1947 and which, in the period when the War Measures Act had ceased to be in effect, had been carried forward under the authority of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945.
In the various extensions of this measure, it has always been put before the house as a measure of limited duration. I have indicated that when it was introduced in 1947 it was to expire in 1948. In 1948 an amendment was introduced which extended the period of life of the measure to March 31, 1950. In the second session of 1949 the life of the measure was extended to July 31, 1951. Then at the 1951 session the life of the measure was extended to July 31, 1954. And, unless extended in some form at this present session, it will expire on that date.
I have mentioned that the measure was introduced as one designed to cope with an emergency. The emergency, as described by the minister who introduced the measure on February 18, 1947, is of a nature comparable in no way, I suggest, with the conditions of today. The Hon. Mr. MacKinnon, at page 568 of Hansard for that date, referred to the main purpose of export control in these words:
While the main purpose of the export control is to ensure adequate supply in Canada, the export controls are also necessary to enable us to carry out Canada's commitments in connection with those foodstuffs which are in world short supply and which, by common agreement of the united nations, must be formally allocated to ensure an equitable distribution.
And then he made mention of a third form of control, or a third purpose of control, and said this:
A third type of control which is envisaged by this measure is that relating to the movement of arms, munitions and war materials and supplies.
I am sure I do not need to dwell at length upon the radical change in the situation as between February 18, 1947, and today, March 17, 1954-the 17th of Ireland.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no longer any scarcity of goods in Canada which must be assisted
3094	HOUSE OF
E&port and Import Permits Act by control over exports, nor is Canada lacking the foodstuffs or other materials necessary to fulfil international agreements at this time. The third type of control mentioned by the Hon. Mr. MacKinnon in the extract from which I have just read is one that is much more in our minds today.
When the measure came before the house in 1947 it was proposed on behalf of the official opposition by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that the whole subject should be carefully reviewed in the banking and commerce committee. His suggestion was accepted on behalf of the government by the Hon. Mr. MacKinnon, then minister of trade and commerce. It will be remembered that a very useful review of the whole structure of export and import control was carried out in the banking and commerce committee.
When the measure was reported back to the house I think there was general recognition of the fact that the reference to the banking and commerce committee had been a highly useful procedure. Mr. Speaker, I am again suggesting to the house that an equally useful purpose would now be served by the reference of this measure to the banking and commerce committee. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not present with us today, being absent in Washington on official duties attending an important international conference, but I am laying that suggestion before the government and before the house as one which I think will facilitate the business of the house and also contribute considerably to an adequate review of this control structure.
When the measure was under debate at that time the hon. member for Greenwood, speaking for the official opposition, drew attention to three fundamental considerations that should weigh with the house in reference to a measure of this kind. I suggest that those observations are equally valid today. First of all, he expressed a dislike of controls as the kind of interference which in ordinary circumstances tampers with the free flow of sound economic forces. In the second place, he expressed a dislike of government by order in council. Every measure of this kind inevitably involves the conferring of power upon the governor in council virtually to legislate by that means. That objection is as strong today as it was in 1947, or stronger. The third consideration which he drew to the attention of the house at that time was the danger of placing in the hands of the government a weapon or power which could be used to create monopoly or to impose a discrimination between different Canadian exporters or different Canadian 

importers. When the measure was brought back to the house after review in the banking and commerce committee an attempt was made to control the date of expiration of the measure more effectively, but that amendment of the hon. member for Greenwood was defeated.
Those who sat in the last parliament will recall that when this measure came before the house in 1951 there were two forms of extension involved. One was the extension in point of time; the other was an extension in the type of control contemplated by it.
So far as the extension in point of time is concerned, it was the proposal of the government at that time that the extension should be for a period of five years to July 31, 1956. I will say this for the work done on the measure in the other place that that extension was reduced to three years. A somewhat similar reduction in the length of the extension had been proposed in this house, but it was rejected by the government. Mr. Speaker, I should have thought it necessary with respect to a measure of this kind, which can only justify its existence on the basis of the existence of an emergency, that the house should insist that an opportunity would be afforded to it for a periodical review and that there should be nothing in the nature of a long or indefinite extension of time. The three-year extension did carry and we are now faced with the conclusion of that three-year period.
The other form of extension made by the 1951 amendment was in the nature of the control. Up until that time the control had been upon a commodity basis. In 1951 control on a country basis was added. That was a very important extension. The reason was quite obvious. It was in the period following the outbreak of communist aggression in Korea and no objection was taken to that particular type of extension under the emergent conditions which were then described as existing.
In this 1954 session we are invited to consider the replacement of the Export and Import Permits Act. The measure now under debate contemplates the repeal of the existing legislation and its replacement by a new Export and Import Permits Act, which presumably in some respects will carry further the broad structure of controls existing under the present legislation.
I think that this is a measure of high importance. It brings us face to face with many far-reaching questions in relation to trade policy, particularly in the type of world we are living in where a cold war still is being waged and where a hot war

is being fought in certain unhappy parts of Asia. It is with that background that we approach this measure.
It is fair to ask at once: What is the extent of the use made by the government of the powers conferred upon it under the existing legislation? It is proper to answer that the use of the power has been quite extensive with respect to export but very limited with respect to import. May I give the house the details of the permits issued in the past four years:
Export	Import
1950	
23,526	51951	
32,026	1091952	
33,422	1,5681953	
26,635	650115,609	2,332
The export permits outnumber the import permits by fifty times. The question then naturally arises: What is the necessity for import control? I submit that that is a matter which should have serious consideration, which should have a more serious and extended study than is possible in the house or in the committee of the whole. It is a subject that ought to engage the attention of a committee like the banking and commerce committee.
One example of the use of this power of limiting exports comes to mind at once, and I refer to the limitation announced in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on December 14, 1953, with respect to the export to the United States of Canadian oats. This is in truth an example of the control of exports which has no relation to strategic materials, which has no relation to arms, which has no relation to war materials or munitions, but which is used as an instrument of trade policy.
I ask the house to consider whether this is the type of use of a controlling power which the house approves. At that time it was announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a government decision that effective at midnight December 10, 1953, and continuing until midnight September 30, 1954, the Canadian government had undertaken to limit the shipment of Canadian oats to the United States to 23 million bushels. The reason given was that the United States executive had asked that this measure be taken by the Canadian government in order that the United States government might not be faced with what was then an imminent breach of the general agreement on tariffs and trade by the United States congress.
It may have been very accommodating to the government of the United States that the government of Canada should come to its 83276-196i
Export and Import Permits Act rescue in this situation and impose this limitation on the export of Canadian oats to the United States. But what are the hard realities of the situation? The fact is that the United States congress deliberately violated the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1952 with respect to the importation into that country of certain dairy products. In 1953 they again violated the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and again with reference to certain dairy products, by the extension of the products to which certain prohibitory legislation applied, and now congress, at the end of 1953, apparently is on the point of again violating the general agreement on tariffs and trade by applying restrictions on the importation of Canadian oats into that country. The Canadian government rises to the occasion and accommodates the executive of the United States by imposing these restrictions upon the export of Canadian oats to the United States so that, apparently, the United States congress will not be put in the position of violating, as it has in fact and in spirit, the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I for one, Mr. Speaker, fail to understand why it became the duty of the Canadian government, the considered responsibility of the Canadian government, to take that action at that time.
If the United States congress at the expense of the Canadian farmer is determined to violate the spirit and the letter of the general agreement on tariffs and trade- a shocking violation of good faith in a world in which violations of good faith on the part of nations in the west are critically examined by those in the world who are not our friends -then I believe that that responsibility should be allowed to rest squarely where it belongs, namely on the United States congress as the violator of the agreement. The Canadian government should not step forward and impose limitations upon the export of Canadian grain to accommodate the United States congress.
I now pass on, Mr. Speaker, to a consideration of the effect of this measure in relation to a subject of even wider significance. This measure before us is described as "an act respecting the export and import of strategic and other goods". Let us dwell for a moment on the importance of that word "strategic". The word itself, of course, is not defined in the bill. Its exact import may be a matter of debate in certain particulars, but its significance is, I believe, beyond question. We are thinking here in terms of ensuring that materials which would be of assistance to aggressors in the world today are not permitted to fall into the hands of those aggressors, either by direct export of such
3096	HOUSE OF
Export and Import Permits Act goods to those aggressors, or by export elsewhere under such circumstances that they will by indirect methods eventually fall into the hands of those would-be aggressors.
This, Mr. Speaker, raises some very far-reaching and searching questions as to trade policy, and as to the relationship of trade considerations to the whole broad question of the peace of the world. In examining the figures on trade with nations which lie behind the iron curtain one finds some rather interesting facts. First of all, let us look at our export trade with Russia. In 1952 we exported to Russia a total of $421 worth of goods, in 1953 a total of $478 worth of goods. The records indicate that these goods exported were: settlers' effects, books, liquor, and donations. Our trade with China shows some rather interesting figures also. In 1952 we exported to China goods to the value of $1,155,524, and in 1953 the total was nil. If one looks at trade with Hong Kong as reflecting something of the trade we formerly did with China it will be seen that in 1952 our export trade to Hong Kong amounted to a total of $9,581,937, and in 1953 $8,999,606. I am not going to deal with the other countries which lie behind the iron curtain but I will mention one with which we used to do a rather important trade, namely Czechoslovakia. Our exports to Czechoslovakia in 1952 were only $366,229. In 1953 they have fallen further to a total of only $122,691.
It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that since 1951, under the powers conferred by the existing legislation, the government has enlarged the number of countries with which trade is proscribed except on an export permit basis. The 1953 report of the Department of Trade and Commerce in relation to this measure shows that since January 13, 1953, the number of proscribed countries, to which goods are not permitted to move except under permit, are the following: North Korea, Hong Kong, China, Macao, Manchuria, Mongolia, Sinkiang, Tibet, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, the Russian occupied zone of Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Danzig, Roumania, the Ukraine, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That represents a very much enlarged list of countries as compared with the previous list of proscribed countries since the power to control export by countries was conferred upon the governor in council in 1951. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this house questions the wisdom of extending the prohibition to all these countries, except on the permit basis.
Let us then examine the question of trade with those countries behind the iron curtain. It is timely, I believe, that this question should

Business of the House was indicated by Sir Winston Churchill in this last extract it was his intention to consult the United States and France in this regard?
On motion of Mr. Fleming the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the motion to appoint the committee on railways and shipping, then continue this debate, and then take second reading of the bill with respect to losses to government property.

Then we shall go into supply and take the departments of mines and technical surveys, fisheries and transport.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister in a position to tell us now what might be the program for Friday?


Walter Edward Harris: I think it will be largely what I have already indicated for tomorrow, or what part of it may not be disposed of. We may possibly also call the bill having to do with diplomatic immunity but I am not sure yet.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 18, 1954