1954-06-16

CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex Wesl) presented the third report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital and corporal punishment, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the Prime Minister (Mr. St-Laurent) indicated that I would make a statement as to whether it was intended to proceed at this session with the amendments to the Municipal Grants Act. As I stated, I think last week, the government had hoped to be able to proceed with that measure this session, but the legislative program has been heavy, and in view of the fact that the amendments would not be operative until the calendar year 1955, the usual municipal year, no prejudice would be suffered by the measure standing over until the next session.
It would be the government's intention to introduce the measure at the earliest possible moment at that session. There is an item in my estimates of some $3 million for the grants for the calendar year, and when that item is called we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter and I can indicate, in a general way, the nature of the amendments which the government has in mind.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I thought possibly, from the remarks that had been made earlier, there was some anticipation of this. But, on a question of order, I would point out the unsatisfactory result that flows from keeping on the order paper notices that are not carried through. Your Honour has had occasion to rule that, in view of these notices, certain debates which we wished to have in regard 83276-383
to relief for municipalities in connection with excise and sales taxes could not 'be dealt with because of this. I am not suggesting for one moment that the purpose of having this on the order paper was to produce that result. I would point out, however, that this result does follow from having on the order paper items of this kind that are not then proceeded with. It has been on the order paper since March 22, so that we were blocked from what we do regard as a very important provision for relief of the municipalities.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask whether the government believes that municipalities have no urgent needs or whether they are to be allowed to stew in their own juice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend's language is always somewhat colourful, only exceeded by that of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I do not know that I have any special comment to make on that at the moment, Mr. Speaker.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Was any financial assistance given to the marketing of salt fish in Newfoundland since confederation but prior to the 1953 production, in the form of subsidies to producers, purchasers of surplus production, or currency conversion?
2.	If so, what were the total amounts involved?
3.	Did Nova Scotia and the other mainland provinces share in such subsidies, purchases of surplus or currency provisions?
4.	If so, to what extent and in what form?
5.	What assistance was given to the salt fish industry in 1953 and how was the division made in regard to provinces?
6.	Were any subsidies paid on 1953 fish to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island?
7.	What federal subsidies were paid on 1953 fish, and to what regions?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Purchase 1949 production, $82,564.52;
(b)	deficiency payments on Labrador 1950 production, $446,120.15; (c) deficiency payments shore 1950 production, $810,105.11.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The government purchased in 1953 approximately $950,000 worth of salted codfish for relief purposes in Greece and Korea.

Questions
The amounts were: Newfoundland, $500,000; Nova Scotia, $190,000; New Brunswick, $10,000; Quebec, $250,000.
The amounts were based on the carryover of 1952 fish in each province. Deficiency payments were also authorized in Quebec and Newfoundland. The Quebec payments amounted to $37,420. The Newfoundland payments have not yet been made but will approximate $600,000.
6.	None.
7.	Answered by No. 5.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Dinsdale:: X. What was the cost of the Hendry report on welfare services for the Canadian armed forces?
2.	Where was it carried out and completed?
3.	Who defrayed the expenses involved in the preparation of this report?
4.	Who has had access to this report?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The sum of $24,220.62 was paid as the cost of a report made for the personnel members committee of the three services by Professor Hendry of the University of Toronto in contract with the defence research board.
2.	1950-51.
3.	Defence research board.
4.	The staff of the contractor who prepared it and the appropriate officials of the Department of National Defence.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING CO-ORDINATION ACT

Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	Did all the provinces enter into an agreement with the federal government in virtue of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942?
2.	If so. in what year was an agreement signed with each province?
3.	How many disabled persons, in each province and for each year since 1942 to 1954, were provided assistance for rehabilitation training?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Youth training agreement. Nine provinces signed in 1942. Agreement expired 1948.
(b)	War emergency training agreement. Eight provinces signed in 1942. Agreement expired 1946. Prince Edward Island signed 1944.
(c)	Re-establishment agreement. Nine provinces signed in 1945. Agreement expired 1948.
(d)	Vocational schools' assistance agreement. Nine provinces signed in 1945. Newfoundland 1950; Northwest Territories 1953.
(e)	Vocational training agreement. Nine provinces signed 1948. Newfoundland 1950, Northwest Territories 1953.
[Mr. MacNaughtJ
(f)	Apprenticeship training agreement. Seven provinces signed 1944. Newfoundland 1953; Northwest Territories 1953. Quebec and Prince Edward Island have not signed this agreement.
(g)	Vocational correspondence courses agreement. Eight provinces signed 1950. Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Northwest Territories have not signed this agreement.
3.	There is no record of the number of disabled persons trained under the provisions of the act prior to 1953. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, 511 disabled trainees were reported by the province as follows:- Nova Scotia 28; New Brunswick 92; Quebec 46; Ontario 223; Manitoba 45; Saskatchewan 20; Alberta 38; British Columbia 19.



HALIFAX


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What was the total tonnage of ships entering the port of Halifax during the months of January
(a)	1953; (b) 1954?
2.	What was the total tonnage of freight handled in and out of the port of Halifax in the same period?
3.	What were the total wages paid to waterfront
workers in Halifax for the period (a) January 1953;	(b) January 1954;	(i) stevedores; (ii)
checkers?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The national harbours board advise as follows:
1.	(a) 600,096 net registered tons; (b) 627,765 net registered tons.
2.	1953-560,013 tons; 1954-443,537 tons.
3.	The information requested is not on record in the national harbours board as it is a matter affecting stevedoring companies and transportation companies and contracts for stevedoring services between these respective types of companies.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Who have been chairmen of the New Westminster harbour board since its inception?
2.	How long did each serve?
3.	What were their respective salaries?
4.	Who have been the other commissioners on the harbour board?
5.	How long did each serve?
6.	What were their respective salaries?
7.	What is the total revenue received by the harbour board each year?
8.	What are the details of said revenue?
9.	How much revenue does the harbour board receive through any source whatsoever from the following municipalities and districts: (a) Delta;
(b)	Richmond; (c) Burnaby; (d) Surrey; (e) Langley; (f) Maple Ridge; (g) Pitt Meadows; (h) Coquitlam; (i) Port Coquitlam?


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	What were the revenues and expenditures of the Post Office Department for each of the years 1940 to 1953 inclusive?
2.	What are the classifications of postmasters, postmistresses, supervisors and postal employees according to salary category?
3.	What is the rate of remuneration per annum paid in the case of each of these classifications?
4.	What, if any, expense allowance is provided for any such official or employee supplying office space, heat, light, etc.?



JUDGES ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for an additional judge of the court of appeal for British Columbia and an additional judge for the trial division of the supreme court of Alberta.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture of which I have not sent him notice. In view of the low opening quotation of $1.25 for new crop Ontario winter wheat, is the government prepared to announce a policy, if any, on floor prices for eastern grown winter wheat?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing done under the wheat board in connection with that price. The price in that regard is set otherwise.



DECLINE IN EXPORTS OF TOBACCO TO HOLLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) a question in connection with the decline of exports of Canadian tobacco to Holland. His question 83276-383J
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus may be found at page 5829 of Hansard for Friday, June 11. Inquiries have been made in this respect and I can now inform the house that the decline in Canadian exports of tobacco to The Netherlands can be attributed to the fact that our sales in that market in recent years have been made up of lower grades of tobacco. As a result of favourable growing and marketing conditions in Canada we have not had as much of these grades of tobacco for export during the last two or three years.



MARKETING OF SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Prudham for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Harkness, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a speech prepared that could in no sense be described as a controversial speech, but in view of some of the statements made during the debate yesterday perhaps I will not be able to conclude my remarks without making some critical references to some of the statements made.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) spent some time dealing with what this proposal is likely to cost the treasury of Canada. He estimated, first of all, that it might cost the taxpayers $100 million, or perhaps $130 million, or, if the price really went down, it might cost $260 million.
The conclusion one would draw from his remarks would be that the Canadian farmer should be left holding the bag. We are in a critical position. Our whole argument is that all of Canada should stand behind the wheat producers at this critical time and I hope, before I conclude, that I will be able to demonstrate that this is not an unreasonable request.
Let me remind the hon. member for Eglinton that a year ago, on May 6 to be exact, he and members of his party who were here were prepared to support a price for wheat 25 cents higher than the price proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Of course, it could happen that the election last year might have been a factor in this regard, but the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and all the other Conservative members who were here were quite prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus at that time. That amendment appears on page 4856 of Hansard for May 6, 1953, and reads as follows:
this house is of the opinion that consideration should be given to an increase of 25 cents in the initial payment for No. 1 Northern wheat basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver for the crop year beginning August 1, 1953, so that the said initial payment will be $1.65 per bushel.
If that was a good proposal a year ago I submit that the proposal which is before us now is also a good one. I -think it is not unreasonable to expect the government of Canada to take some responsibility for supporting the price of wheat.
I might mention to hon. members opposite that apparently only two of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan who voted against this proposal a year ago came back to parliament after the election. They were the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison), and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). Apparently it was not too easy for other hon. members to justify their stand in the province of Saskatchewan.
I wish to make it very clear that the members of this group in supporting this subamendment are not criticizing in any way the wheat board or orderly marketing. We have made it quite clear that we would be most unhappy if the opposition should be called upon to look after the marketing of farm products.
I should mention that the share of national income that went to agriculture during the years when the Conservatives were last in power amounted to 7-6 per cent in 1930, 2-9 per cent in 1931, 4-1 per cent in 1932, 3 per cent in 1933, and 6 per cent in 1934. Now, I am not satisfied with the 8-8 per cent of the national income which went to agriculture in 1953, but I must admit very frankly that having 8-8 per cent of the national income is a great deal better than having 2-9 per cent, and the fact that the people of Saskatchewan have been unwilling to elect Conservative members to the legislature since 1929 would indicate that they are very unhappy when they think of the terrible years during the thirties. Therefore, I would like to make it very clear again that we support the wheat board and orderly marketing.
Now, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) should perhaps be reminded that this is not a motion of want of confidence in the government. If this motion should carry, the procedure would be exactly as it was in August, 1946, when we had a similar motion before the house and when the hon. member for Rosthern and I voted on the same side on this important issue. Let me remind the house of the nature of the amendment which

I had the honour to move on August 27, 1946. This appears on page 5425 of August 27, 1946, and reads as follows:
This house desires to record its opinion that consideration should be given to the continuance of the milk subsidy so as to ensure adequate return to milk producers and make possible the consumption of milk for the nutrition of the Canadian people without any further increase in the price thereof to the consumers.
When the vote was called the hon. member for Rosthern -and I were on the same side, and the vote was 69 for and 41 against, and the government at that time was not defeated. The present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) then moved that the house go into committee of supply and the business of the house was then continued.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if it was in order for the hon. member for Rosthern to vote for a principle he thought then was sound it would be quite in order for him to vote now in support of the subamendment which is before the house.
However, I take it that he is opposed to the content of the subamendment and he does not think the taxpayers of Canada should be called upon to place -any floor under the price of wheat. He thinks that the farmers should engage in a price war with our powerful neighbours to the south who have all the resources of their treasury to subsidize wheat for export.


Mr. Tucker:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows that he is not correctly representing what I said. I said I believed the Liberal party believes in the principle of floor prices and that they believe in giving a square deal to the farmer in order to see that he gets his fair share of the national income. That policy I support. But I do not support a motion which upholds the idea that the whole marketing system has failed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that statement sounds as though it confirms what I previously stated, namely that the hon. member for Rosthern is not prepared to support any legislation that will give the farmers an assurance that the price of wheat is not going to go down into the cellar again.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I am supporting a government which has said that it will make an initial payment which will constitute a fair floor. That is exactly what I am supporting. The hon. member is misrepresenting the situation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Wheat-Marketing of Surplus an unmixed blessing. They are concerned about the effect that this is going to have on world trade.
From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has come their June dispatch which complains about the diminishing share of the 'national income going to the farmer, taking into consideration the farm cost of living. The real net farm income in 1953 was 10 per cent lower than in 1952 and 25 per cent lower than in the peak year of 1951. Using the five years 1925-29 as the base period, the parity ratio reached a peak of 111 for 1948, fell to 106 in 1949, rose to 110 in 1951 and fell for two years to the low level of 87-4. At the present time the cost of goods and services purchased by farmers averaged 3 per cent higher in 1951 whereas the wholesale price of farm products averaged 18 per cent lower. Just this morning 1 received a letter from the Manitoba farmers union, a letter addressed to all western members of the House of Commons, and it suggests with respect to the very bad news announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last week that it is hard for western farmers to believe that the government expects them to compete with the United States treasury. They remind us of the statement made by the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, in his radio broadcast of December 4, 1943, when he said:
If to help win the war the farmers are asked to accept ceiling prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to assure them against agricultural depression after the war.
I must take some responsibility for the fact that those of us from western Canada have not done the best public relations job in presenting the problem to our people. I came here in 1940 from an area that had very rough times all during the thirties. I considered that it was one of my duties to try to see that the people whom I represented had their fair share of the national income. I probably could be open to the criticism that the conditions I described possibly did not represent the facts for everybody in the area, but that was the area to which those people came who had lost everything in the drought areas of the province in order that they could start over again on heavy bush land. I admit very frankly that during the last ten years the people of my constituency have handled a good deal more money than they did in the previous ten years, but we are not going to be satisfied until we have our Jiair share of the national income.
I think all farm organizations and farm members from the western provinces have somehow or other given the impression to


other hon. members of the house that we are crying blue ruin and are always asking for something which is unreasonable. I resent that suggestion very much. In the present crisis we do not want something that the rest of the people of Canada cannot and should not give. I am sorry that I was not a member of the house but was on the farm at the time the debate took place regarding the $65 million that was spent by the people of this country to reimburse the western farmers, but I have heard at least a dozen times since returning to the house that we gouged the treasury for $65 million.
I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will not object to my reminding him that he defended the cause of the western farmers on the ground that during the war years the price of their product was fixed at a figure that did not give them the cost of production. The minister, speaking on July 29, 1944, said as reported at page 5624 of Hansard:
I was careful to see that there was nothing In the bill which said that we were going to base any decision on the cost of production. The cost of production may be only a part of the consideration. I think it is possible the board might determine that the farmer should have considerably more than his cost of production because of some other experience he has had in order to get through the transitional period in a proper position.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) who, I am very sorry to see, is unable to be with us, made a very good speech during that debate. It is to be found at page 1081 of Hansard of March 9, 1951. He placed on the record some figures that have been played around with in connection with the loss suffered by the wheat farmers because of the British wheat agreement. I am not going to take any time in arguing that if there had not been an international wheat agreement we would have been able to sell all our wheat during those years at the maximum class II price. However, the hon. member for Battle River gave a total figure of $431,676,000 as the alleged amount that the wheat farmers lost because of the wheat agreement, and I think that somewhere between that amount and the $65 million a figure could be set which would be fair.
But I think there can be no argument about the other figures that the hon. member for Battle River placed on the record. They have to do with the losses suffered by the farmers as the result of subsidizing Canadian consumers during the period from 1946 to 1949 inclusive. He gives totals of $34 million, $21 million, $65 million, $9 million and $6 million for the various years, or a grand total of $136 million. I do not think

there is any doubt about it that all the people of Canada enjoyed the benefit of having cheap bread all through that period at the expense of the farmers, who were obliged to buy their farm machinery at prices that were going up every day and every week. All the farmers of western Canada, regardless of their political views, feel that the $65 million voted by the government of the day was no handout but was a very niggardly settlement in payment of an obligation of all the taxpayers of Canada to a group that had produced wheat at low prices during the war and after the war.
After saying that, I admit very frankly that the situation at this time does present a most serious problem. I am not going to minimize it, and it is not likely that members of this group will be over on the government side in the immediate future and have the opportunity to solve it. But I want to outline some fundamental principles. I want to suggest that it should not be a serious problem for the Canadian people to do in peacetime what they did in wartime. The minister of finance of that time outlined the fiscal policy when he said that whatever is physically possible will be made financially possible. Since that was a good policy in wartime it is likewise a good policy in peacetime.
We really should not be concerned about having produced so much foodstuffs in the country that we do not know what to do about it. I want to emphasize again that those who live in industrial cities, those who are lawyers and storekeepers, are going to feel the impact of this trend very shortly. As a matter of fact the situation did not develop in the past week. It has been on our doorstep. It so happened that the government delayed action until near the end of the session. As an indication that these problems affect all of us, may I say that I note in the last weekly bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics that 78 per cent more commercial failures were recorded under the bankruptcy and winding-up acts in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of last year. The last issue of the Labour Gazette points out, as does the federation of agriculture, that farm income dropped 13 per cent in 1953 and was down 23 per cent in 1952. They draw our attention to the problem in the United States and point out that one union there reported
400.000	unemployed, that there are over
300.000	coal miners unemployed and 250,000 steelworkers. In the United States there are
950.000	listed as unemployed in three industries alone. In Canada that trend is going to develop. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr Howe) will agree, the farm implement industry workers, the automobile
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus workers and the textile workers have all been to Ottawa since we came here last November to place their problems before us and ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take action.
Naturally, I am concerned about the problem of wheat and what we are going to do. I am indebted to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for some words of wisdom he used when he spoke to the last annual meeting of the federation of agriculture. He said:
-any government-these days is in trouble with some of the people all of the time, most of the people some of the time, but not, I hope, with all of the people all of the time.
It seems to me that the people I have the honour of representing have been in trouble with the government all the time. The minister quoted from the poet Willa Cather, who said:
Life is hard for most people, and when it is easy, it is hardest of all.
After making that quotation, I guess the minister decided it probably was not very appropriate for the group to whom he was speaking, so he quickly added:
There are times, however, I must confess, when I find it difficult to accept that philosophy that a life of ease is really a life of hardship and vice versa.
The problem that is going to confront the wheat producers is a matter with which I feel the government of this country is going to have to deal. I happen to be in the position where all my worldly possessions, such as they are, are tied up in farmland and equipment. I do not want sympathy from this house or from anyone. If it is a decision that Canadian overseas markets will not absorb large quantities of wheat in the years to come, let us make that decision, but do not freeze the farmers out at this time of year. As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) pointed out, last year on April 27 the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced that the initial price in 1953 for wheat would be not less than $1.40. He has been involved in some discussion during this debate, but he has not yet said what the price for wheat will be for the 1954-55 crop. He did say there would be an interim payment, but he did not say that all the wheat that is now on the western farms will be accepted at the present initial price and that there will be an interim payment on all the grain that has been grown in the year 1953.
Until the minister is prepared to make a further commitment on these two points, the fact that all the wheat grown last year will be accepted at the prevailing initial price and that there will be a further payment on

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus all the wheat grown last year, western farmers are going to be in a period of uncertainty. If the government decides that we are not going to be able to sell a large volume of grain, there is no point in western wheat producers trying to compete with the United States. But I suggest that is a decision the government could make, and that the government must make. Again I want to remind the house that twice during my lifetime a Conservative government and then a Liberal government came into the field to take over the marketing of the farmers' wheat during wartime. During the first world war the government stepped in and prevented wheat from going up to a probable $5 per bushel. During the second war when it appeared as though wheat were going up again, the government came into the picture and prevented the farmers from having all that the traffic would bear. Now that there is a large surplus of this product, I feel that the government cannot bail out without making some adjustment for the sins of commission in the past.
The Minister of Agriculture was good enough to refer to the position prevailing in the United States. I want to say again that I am happy I am living in Canada rather than in the United States. But I see no reason why our Department of Agriculture should not be willing to go as far in meeting the needs of the Canadian farmer as does the United States government. The United States government has this large surplus on hand, but they are in a different position. They can give all their surplus food away without having any serious repercussions on their own economy. This action would have a serious effect on our market, but we are not in that position. We export such a large percentage of our production that we cannot give away much without there being quite a drain on our economy.
We must face the facts. At the moment we have about four years' wheat supply for domestic consumption. At the end of the present crop year we will have about four years' supply of the total imports that the British would require. Well, with that situation I feel the Canadian government must look at the problem and must decide who are to take the consequences. I want to say to those who live in Ontario and Quebec that for 50 years it has been part of the policy of Canada to develop the great plains of the west on the theory that we would have overseas markets for unlimited quantities of grain. If that situation is changed, if European countries have now decided that as insurance against war they must increase their


own production, subsidize their own production and cut down their imports from abroad, that creates a problem that vitally affects every Canadian.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada, rather than the prairie wheat producers, should deal with this problem and should face the facts. In the United States they try to deal fairly with the farmer. One farmer has defined the parity price this way:
If you can sell a truckload of wheat and buy with the money as much food, clothing, building materials, farm machinery, fertilizer, and the like as you could in the five years, 1910-1914, your wheat is selling at the parity price.
That is all the farmers want. They want to be able to sell a truckload of wheat and buy the other commodities produced in Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture had a good deal to say about cutting down acreage. He may remember that during the war he asked the Canadian farmers to help win the war by growing less wheat, by cutting down their production.


James Garfield Gardiner: And paid them for it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, and paid them for it. There is no reason why the Minister of Agriculture should not go to the farmers again and say, "We are sorry; we cannot use or sell all the wheat you have been growing. You have made your contribution to the Canadian economy, and we want to play fair with you." I submit that if Canadian farmers were able to get prices like the United States farmers of $2.18 a bushel, there is not a farmer of whom I know who would not be willing to drastically reduce his wheat acreage to get that sort of price. The weekly Searle grain report gives us the comparative prices for wheat, and shows that at Portal, North Dakota, the price was $2.13, whereas at North Portal, Saskatchewan, it was $1.43. I believe everybody will agree that the farmers south of the line buy their machinery at lower prices, as well as their gasoline and other commodities. Their operating costs are lower than in Canada.
May I say a word about the international situation? I feel we must face the fact that $2,000 million per year is a very large amount for Canada to be putting into our defence expenditures. I do not feel we can treat our farmers as has been proposed. It is inevitable that we have some soft spots in our economy if we are going to put such a large amount into national defence. The $2,000 million that we are putting into national defence is not, I think, giving us

the best results in this race in which we are engaged, in an effort to prevent the spread of communism.
Lord Boyd Orr said this:
The most urgent material need of the world today is food. Prolonged hunger causes social and political unrest, and hinders co-operation, not only between nations, but even within nations. Already the fear of another war casts its shadow on mankind. Statesmen are finding difficulties in laying the foundations of permanent world peace . . . But man and his governments have their eyes on the wrong goal. Hunger is at the heart of the world's troubles. Unless people are fed, the best treaties and agreements can come to nothing. Hungry people cannot be satisfied by anything but food.
I notice that recently in the American congress representative Wiley, chairman of the committee on foreign relations, said this about surpluses:
I do not view the C.C.C. stocks as an embarrassment to be disposed of as quietly and quickly as possible. I view them rather as assets . . . which we are lucky to have. They are also a challenge. Surely a people who can produce the hydrogen bomb has the ingenuity not to let butter spoil in government warehouses while some are hungry? It would be downright immoral to allow such a thing to happen. The conscience of the American people would not allow it.
They should devote more effort to utilizing this bounty, and less to penalizing its producers . . . Any other country in the world that was blessed with $350 million worth of dairy products would give thanks-not rap anybody's knuckles.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested the other night that there are no longer any hungry people in the world, that nobody wants our wheat. But that is not the way we hear it from the food and agriculture organization. That organization tells us that a large group of mankind, more than a billion human beings, never get enough food for health, growth and full physical development. Those people are poor. Their food consists mainly of grain, starchy roots and tubers. These peoples are found in some parts of Africa, Europe and Central America. They may also be found in parts of the most prosperous countries, including our own.
So I think we can agree that, internationally, we should do everything within our power to see that surplus foods are made available to all who are hungry, and that in Canada no one should run short of food. It is pointed out in a newspaper report that an American sergeant gets as much pay as a French colonel. Maybe that does not create any problem for the American sergeant, but I do submit that it creates a problem for the French army. And it creates a problem for us at the present time, when we have such a high standard of living in this country, and yet seem to be unwilling as a people to share the excess.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
So I submit that in offering this amendment we are merely asking that all the people of Canada stand behind the wheat producers in this particular crisis.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
In the earlier part of his remarks the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) made a statement which conveyed the impression that on May 6, 1953, my colleagues and I -and he referred to me particularly-had voted in this house in favour of a C.C.F. amendment in terms similar to that now under debate.
I could not believe my ears, and sent for Hansard. I find that Hansard for May 6, 1953, at page 4857, gives the following as the text of the C.C.F. amendment then under debate on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply:
That all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be struck out and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that consideration should be given to an increase of 25 cents in the initial payment for No. 1 Northern wheat basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver for the crop year beginning August 1, 1953, so that the said initial payment will be $1.65 per bushel."
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that I voted for that amendment, and it is also a fact that my Conservative colleagues voted for it. But it is not a fact, as the hon. member's words convey, that that amendment was of the same nature, for the same purpose or to the same effect as the amendment now under debate. On the contrary, it was of a very different nature. It related purely and simply to the amount of the initial payment for the crop year 1953-54. That is a far cry from a motion under which the C.C.F. now invite the house to subscribe to a policy of establishing a floor price of $1.82J per bushel indefinitely. The two things are quite different.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that there is nothing inconsistent in the position we took on May 6, 1953, in supporting a proposal for an increase in the initial price for the crop year 1953-54, and the position we now take against the present C.C.F. amendment. The two matters are quite different.
I wish to say emphatically that the impression that would have been created by the remarks of the hon. member in this respect is entirely misleading.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the house is ready to get on with other business-and rightly so-and I do not want to increase its restiveness to any degree at all. But since reference was made to me
6056	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus by my good neighbour to the south, the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) I think I would be lacking in courtesy if I did not say something at this time.
I appreciate very much his deep concern at my not having done credit to myself the other day, when I offered a few remarks. I wish to thank him for his concern and express the hope that as time goes on his estimation of me may improve.
In his speech the hon. member tried to indicate that my knowledge of the western farm situation was superficial, to say the least. He made special reference to what I had said about seeing the ships moving these millions of bushels of grain before my very eyes from Fort William, and suggested that my reference to that was indicative of the fact that I have only a superficial knowledge and appreciation of the difficulties we may be having in the west.
Unfortunately this is but another illustration of the methods so often employed by my friends in the C.C.F. out in our fair province of Saskatchewan. They will take one small illustration out of one's statement, as he has done with what I said the other day, and from it judge one's attitude on a situation. The hon. member did not refer to the fact that I had indicated that in Canada we are in a period of readjustment. He did not refer to the fact that we want as high a price as possible in western Canada for our grain. He did not refer to the fact that I said that if we had to take the lead in this economic adjustment taking place throughout the world in this post-war period, when we are entering into a competitive world market, we would expect an adjustment in the prices of the machinery which enters into the cost of production.
AH these salient facts I tried to point out in humble, perhaps not as parliamentary language as he can use, but nevertheless I expressed them at that time. He merely used that one expression of mine with respect to keeping these millions of bushels of grain moving. That sort of thing is not new to us out in Saskatchewan. We know that if there is any group of people who shy away from facts it is that group that is represented on the other side of the house; although I should inform the house that gradually reasonableness is beginning to assert itself, and more and more we find the members opposite from Saskatchewan drifting away from the actual feeling of the people who elected them. That was illustrated the other day when I quoted this pamphlet entitled "Saskatchewan Invites you", which is broadcast throughout the world by the Saskatchewan government at the international fair at Toronto.


As the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) said yesterday, we can expect these people to go north, and you can look for them in the south. Well, it so happens that the two divergent pictures presented by the party in Saskatchewan are both north and south. What we hear in the house is entirely different from the picture that is presented to Canada and the rest of the world by the officials of the Saskatchewan government.
For the information of the house, and for the information of the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough), I have had some connection with the growing of wheat, and also have been in touch with marketing agencies. As a matter of fact, when the wheat pool was first organized I, in my own little corner, did what I could in the organization in that area, and you will find a good many wheat pool contracts that I signed up some thirty years ago. I was with the wheat pool organization at that very critical time that was dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) yesterday. From 1929 to 1931 I was with the field service department of that organization, and it was my duty at that time to travel throughout the province from Lloydminster to the Manitoba boundary, and in a great many points throughout the province, explaining the difficulties that the wheat pool got into at that time with regard to the so-called overpayment when the price was raised beyond what conditions warranted.
I intended to deal with that period, but the Minister of Agriculture did it yesterday in a very much more able manner than I could. I mention that to show that it is not just a question of observing ships on lake Superior that indicates my general knowledge of and attitude toward conditions in the west. Then, too, I have known personally every one of the members of the present wheat board, because it so happens that all of them, with the exception of the last one, Mr. Robertson, who was added from the grain trade of western Canada recently, went through this experience of the period of the wheat pool together. Mr. Mclvor, Mr. McNamara, Mr. Riddel and Mr. Davidson; I knew all these people in 1929. They have had the experience of the ups and downs in marketing grain in the international markets of the world, and I do not think you will find anywhere in the world a more capable board to handle grain and to sell our grain than the wheat board as constituted at the present time.
Then, too, I have grown grain, or tried to grow it, in the hungry 1930's. No one needs to tell me just what the difficulties were. I sold rye for 11 cents a bushel. A few

years ago I sold rye for $3.85 a bushel. I did not hit the high of $4.11. It just goes to show that I have had some experience with the vagaries of the markets of the world with respect to making a living on a farm. So much for that.
I have tried to keep in touch with all of the municipalities in my riding, and this brings me to the point of the picture that is being given us by hon. members, which is at variance with the picture that is given us by the government of Saskatchewan in the publication I quoted the other day. I have kept in touch with all the municipalities in my constituency of Qu'Appelle even before I came down here. I wrote to them throughout the winter, asking them to bring any difficulties that they may have in which I could be of service. Well, I was able to be of some service in the distribution of box cars and so on, not that everything desired was done, but by simply pressing along for action. I do not say that I was any more successful than anyone else, but I have been in close touch with them.
The economic picture that is being presented, the picture of catastrophe and imminent collapse in western Canada alongside the picture that is being painted to us and to the rest of the world of this huge surplus that we have out there does not agree. What do hon. members think will be the effect upon our buyers and the rest of the world? On the one hand we are just on the brink of economic collapse, and on the other we have tremendous wheat surpluses. Will the buyers of wheat not be inclined to say that those fellows are just about at the end of their tether? These people are in the position where they are not able to carry on, and we shall be able to get that wheat cheaper. I would say that by the talk of the members opposite and by their actions they are helping to drive down the price of wheat in the world markets. I do not say that is the only factor. I do not give them credit for that much international influence, but I do insist that more harm has been done by this eternal talk of ruin, collapse and distress and about going back to the 1930's, than perhaps by any other factor in the markets of the world.
Those traders know how much wheat we have, but they do not always know the details of our local particular economic situation. But thanks to our friends opposite they are being enlightened to a very great degree. I think that is what is in the mind of the Saskatchewan government when it is trying to nullify, when it is trying to minimize, what we are being told by opposition members of the house.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
For some two months now a great deal has been said about the distressing conditions in the west, how we shall not be able to put in our crop for lack of funds, and the difficulty that we shall have in regard to operating our farms, and so on. When the Minister of Agriculture was premier of Saskatchewan, in the most distressing period that Saskatchewan ever went through, it was my privilege to serve under him. We had on the statute books legislation which provided government guarantees to municipalities to assist in putting in crops and helping with summer fallow, and so on. Last spring, when this talk was going on in the House of Commons by hon. members opposite, the Saskatchewan government, under the department of municipal affairs, at the head of which is my friend Mr. McIntosh, made a survey by means of a questionnaire in which it was attempted to summarize conditions and to focus the need for assistance to individuals in the municipalities of the province. I have a copy of the questionnaire here, which I obtained at Easter, and which went into it in some detail. Each councillor was asked to make a survey of conditions and this was to be used as a basis for action. Now, what happened? How widespread and acute was this distress? The other day I said there was a dollar shortage in the west. But that dollar shortage is due to the very same reasons which have resulted in a dollar shortage in eastern Canada. As soon as people are out of their jobs for three or four months and swell the ranks of the unemployed, then they have little cash to fall back upon for the very simple reason that they have spent most of the money they had earned.
We have had more money during the last three years than ever before and that is proven not by me but by the statistics which make it quite clear that while the farm cash income in the rest of Canada declined over the past two years, the whole of Saskatchewan farm cash income increased in 1953 from what it was in 1952 and prior to that; and indeed, the actual figure is $711-4 million for 1953.
The reason for the dollar shortage is obviously due to the fact that we have spent that money in paying our debts, buying machinery, and making other improvements, and while we may not have the money we have at least the value therefor. In the very same fashion, many a good business finds itself in difficulties because it has not got the ready cash, though it has good assets. Many of our people in both the west and the east are in much the same position. They have spent their money in buying automobiles, television, radios, homes

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus and other things, and once they are out of a job for two or three months they are in a difficult position. This is followed by requests that the government through the taxpayer of Canada should at once begin to employ 500,000 people. Now we are being asked to give the people in Saskatchewan some consideration, and I am all for it, provided the need is there.
Ever since 1935 this government has never left western Canada in the lurch. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act many dams have been constructed to alleviate the distress which occurred in previous years; also the $65 million, which was referred to a short time ago, was provided by this parliament. I might add that it was not easy for hon. members of this parliament, particularly on this side of the house, to vote for this grant, because there was some doubt on the part of eastern and B. C. members at that time that we were fully entitled to this $65 million. But there was never a word of thanks from the other side of the house in this regard. On behalf of the people in the west I want to thank members of this house for taking the view that such a payment was necessary, and supporting the proposal so ably put forward by the Minister of Agriculture at that time. It was at some political sacrifice that some of the hon. members from eastern Canada voted for this measure because they found themselves in a very precarious position when they sought re-election, and some hon. members sacrificed their political lives to give us that $65 million. I wish to again thank the government and the Prime Minister for taking such a fair attitude toward the prairie farmer.
In regard to the present situation I might add that 1 am not the least bit concerned about the government coming to our aid when there is a real need. When we have to cry "wolf" I am quite sure the government will come to our rescue and give whatever assistance is possible. But this cry of "wolf, wolf" before the wolf has actually arrived is liable to bring about the same distress as that which was brought about in that old fable we all know so well.
I might point out that we in Saskatchewan have legislation fully capable of dealing with distress conditions such as have been pictured here by the opposition, but which have not yet arrived. The legislation to which I refer is the good Liberal legislation which is on the statute books of Saskatchewan at the present time. In this regard I would like to point out that Premier Douglas, speaking at the annual convention of the rural municipal association of Saskatchewan, dealt with this situation. I would like to quote his remarks as reported in the


News, of Wolseley, Saskatchewan, on Wednesday, June 2, 1954. The report reads as follows:
The Saskatchewan government will this year extend the provisions of the municipal seed grain and seed supply act to cover assistance to farmers on summerfallowing operations. Premier T. C. Douglas said in Regina Friday.
Speaking at the annual convention of the rural municipal secretary-treasurers' association of Saskatchewan, Mr. Douglas said municipal secretaries would soon be notified of the change.
The act provides for provincial guarantee of bank loans to municipalities, the money to be used to assist farmers to meet seeding costs.
"The government has made it clear that this assistance is again available this year and has decided to notify municipalities that.it is prepared to have the legislation apply to summerfallow as well as seeding," the premier said.
He said that, in the main, municipalities have not felt it was necessary to apply for aid under the act this year but the legislation is there for any municipality wishing to take advantage of it.
Reason for extending the act to cover summer-fallow expenses was the difficulty of marketing the 1953 crop, he said.
I would like to draw hon. members' attention to what follows:
Sales of wheat were beginning to pick up and the situation is more hopeful, he said, but it is not expected that the quota on deliveries will be raised above seven bushels an acre in this crop year which ends July 31.
In effect, Mr. Douglas is saying that the situation is more hopeful and that the grain is moving. Now, how can we reconcile that with the statements we have heard in this house? Premier Douglas was addressing one of the most responsible elected bodies we have in Saskatchewan, a body which is noted for its reasonableness in its approach to local as well as general problems affecting the west. It is sometimes called the unofficial parliament of Saskatchewan, and the reasonable people who comprise that body can be counted upon to give a true interpretation of what conditions really are.
Now, I do not wish to put facts and figures on the record with respect to the production or marketing of wheat because it has been my observation that facts and figures, particularly facts, can be marshalled and will not convince those they are intended to convince. You can build a granite pyramid of facts and it would have absolutely no effect on some people in this house. They are in much the same position, I am afraid, as that of the old gentleman who visited the zoo for the first time. I do not know what his political persuasion was, but he arrived at the cage in which the giraffe was installed. He had never seen a giraffe before. He looked at it; took off his glasses; rubbed his glasses, put them on again; looked at it again; folded his glasses up, put them in his pocket, and said: "I just do not believe it."

Some people in this house have the same attitude towards facts. I do not apply this to the people who elected some of our friends opposite in Saskatchewan because many of them are finding that reasonableness is catching up with them, and I might add that I have not a single personal enemy in that whole group. As a matter of fact, some of them voted for me. Indeed, if I may let a secret out, some of the Conservatives voted for me. They thought that I was a reasonable kind of guy. That is the general attitude there, namely one of reasonableness.
I want to draw attention to one or two attitudes relative to wheat marketing that perhaps have not been emphasized. The opposition is in a peculiar situation. They go to great pains to say that the record of the wheat board is all right. The Conservative group speaks a little bit gingerly about that system. In fact I noticed that here and there the gentlemen I admire very much, namely the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), touched upon the matter of the present system of wheat marketing a bit gingerly. But there are some people immediately opposite me who proclaim their adherence to the wheat board and yet at the same time try to condemn the government. They praise the wheat board for selling the wheat and condemn the government for not selling it. They praise the wheat board-[DOT] and here I will work in a figure or two- for selling wheat to 67 different countries of the world the year before last, for selling wheat to nearly 80 countries of the world last year, and for selling, in the year 1952-53, into the export markets of the world more wheat that did the United States during the same period. Of course those are facts. But some of my friends directly opposite-and I refer particularly to the members sitting in the house and not to the general membership of that party out in the country-when they have facts approach them, think they have something undesirable to deal with, and they will take hold of that fact and twist and contort it until that fact shrieks and screams for help. On the other hand, if there is a beautiful theory that approaches them- a theory all dressed up in "buttons and bows", they immediately lock arms and walk down the street with it. They love theories and they deplore facts. The more bold the fact is, the more is that fact to be challenged and demolished if possible. That situation comes about, of course, owing to the suspicious nature of some people. What I mean is this. Some things look so good-and that is the situation in connection with the marketing of grain up to the present time- that it is hard to believe them; they say there
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus must be something wrong; it cannot be that good, just as they say that about this wheat board report: sales cannot be that good. It took them by surprise. I think there are going to be some heart to heart talks among the C.C.F. I think perhaps the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is out in Saskatchewan right now trying to clear the matter up out in the west.
But I must not transgress any longer, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to remind the house that, as far as wheat is concerned, the wheat board is selling wheat. As far as the government is concerned, it is the policy of this government-as it was the policy of the pool when I was associated with it, with the exception of one unfortunate experience-to sell wheat wherever there is a possible market for it. How much plainer than that can you make a policy? It is the policy of this government to sell wheat. I say to my hon. friends: Read your wheat board report. If you do not believe it, I am sorry for you. I cannot help you, much as I should like to do so.
If we have to make a readjustment, well and good. I think most people are realizing that we may have to make a readjustment and that it will be good business to do so. A country of 15 million people-men, women and children-cannot possibly buy a billion bushels of wheat. I want to remind the house that the hon. member for Assiniboia said not a million, but he said: Canada should store up a billion bushels of wheat to have for sale. By the time the taxpayer buys a billion bushels of wheat and by the time he catches up with his defence program and by the time the taxpayer employs 500,000 unemployed from one end of this country to the other, we shall perhaps be arriving at the ultimate objective of a certain political group operating in this country and which says that, if we want a really modern society, we should have state ownership and state control of the means of production, distribution and exchange and that therein lies the solution of all the economic difficulties of the world. If these policies are pursued, taxation will be so great that we shall eventually as individuals have to hand over to the state-for the buying of wheat, for the hiring of people and for all these different things that have been mentioned- so much of all that we earn that we shall have arrived at that idealistic state where we will live a system of state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I do not think the Canadian people want that.
Of course my friends of the Social Credit party in the extreme corner of the chamber

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus to your left, Mr. Speaker, are very amiable gentlemen. But I do not see how they can hold some of the views they hold, considering what fine people they are. But whether we are dealing with wheat or whether we are dealing with any other problem, the solution inevitably brought forward by these people I look upon as unique. In many respects they agree with the rest of the people of Canada with respect to private enterprise as a main source of national wealth and so on, but they have one cure-all. That cure-all is illustrated in a story of many years ago, namely that of Aladdin and his lamp. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, Aladdin was a young lad who found a lamp and by rubbing this lamp a genie would appear; he then could ask for anything that his heart desired and that would be added unto him. There is one thing that I have noticed and it is this. No matter what topic comes up for discussion, I almost know the last few paragraphs of every speech that comes from that corner of the house because they will proclaim this, which I call the Aladdin's lamp of finance. This Social Credit financial Aladdin's lamp theory is handed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and then all he has to do is to rub that lamp and purchasing power-a phrase so glibly used- is at once abundant to all, whether in this country or any other country, and in that way we solve our difficulties. I wish the solution were that easy. I think the emblem that our friends should have or the badge that they should wear is a very simple one, namely this Aladdin's lamp which they could wear in their buttonholes, thus identifying themselves with this Utopian approach to all the difficulties of the world.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken so long at this time-


An hon. Member:: And so are we.


Henry Philip Mang: -but I felt that I wanted to put forward a few explanations in view of the fact that I have been referred to upon several occasions. I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other members who are anxious to get on with the business for taking so long.


Mr. Blackmore:: That is the most sensible thing the hon. member has said.


Henry Philip Mang: However, I wanted to put these few observations on the record.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitancy that I rise because it seems that the motion which was introduced yesterday has come to be regarded by the hon. members on both sides of the house at the south


end as a declaration of private war between the members for Saskatchewan on both sides of this house. It is perfectly true that occasionally, just so that it might not be regarded as too exclusive a war, there has been a very limited reference to the Conservative party in connection with this matter. That, however, was only a gesture of respect rather than any indication that the war was ceasing to be a private war. I do wish to get back to the basic discussion that we have before us, and I have no doubt that this private war will continue outside with the same vigour and refreshing references to ancient history that have characterized it both yesterday and today. Aladdin now joins Demosthenes in dealing with the problem of western wheat. Nevertheless, I would prefer that we come back to the immediate problem presented by the somewhat impressive reality that we are now just six weeks away from the beginning of a new crop year.
We are also confronted with the inescapable fact that we have an unprecedented surplus of wheat. We are confronted with the fact that we have an unprecedented accumulation of wheat on the farms. We are confronted with the fact that on the basis of present sales the accumulation now on the farms is going to be nothing compared with the accumulation there will be in the coming crop year unless something is done which has in no way been indicated to the hon. members of this house.
This is a particularly appropriate time to discuss this subject even though our simple resolution which declared the desire that there be a statement of policy has led to this private war from which I am now seeking to bring the house back at least for a time. I would point out that there is a special reason why this subject is of great and urgent importance in addition to the reality of the threat with which the farmers of western Canada are confronted. That is the fact that the 47-nation international wheat council, which has been described in dispatches as the parliament of the international wheat agreement, assembled this morning in London. This international parliament, which determines various problems under the international wheat agreement, is now at this very moment discussing in London matters of immense importance to the wheat producers of Canada.
When I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few days ago with regard to the representation that Canada would have at that 47-nation meeting in London and the instructions which would be given, we were told that of course the wheat

board is an independent body. I must confess, whatever the criticism I may direct to the minister at any time, that he has not shown himself unaware of the details of the operation of the wheat board on ordinary occasions. I also have not found a reluctance on the part of the government to indicate some measure of satisfaction as to the part it has played in the operation of the wheat board, when that was convenient. It can of course be very convenient to cloak it with an atmosphere of independence that not one of us really believes it has. In fact it is only necessary to go back to the figures of forced sales just prior to the election last year to realize how unreal that cloak of independence really is. Nevertheless we can dispense with that.
We are confronted with the reality of this immense surplus. We are confronted with the fact that we are within six weeks of the new crop year. We are confronted with the fact that the farmers of western Canada have no statement from the government to guide them in planning for that new crop year. That applies not only to the farmers but also to the merchants, to those who will be handling the grain, to the railway companies and the shippers of the grain to distant points.
I am not suggesting that the difficulties confronting the government and wheat producers generally are not immense. We all know that there is a world problem emerging. Nevertheless this very government has boasted over and over again of the extent to which it has been willing to intervene with respect to various aspects of production. In fact it has on the statute books now wide open powers which permit it to intervene. It has claimed credit where that intervention was for good. Let it not deny its responsibility to intervene when we are confronted with a situation which in fairness we must concede is now on a world-wide scale. That is the subject that is being discussed in London at this moment by the 47-nation conference meeting there. Not only the house but the farmers of Canada should be informed what instructions the Canadian representatives at that meeting have been given.
Does the minister suggest for one moment that what has been described as the parliament of the international wheat agreement has Canadian representatives attending that parliament with not a hint of instructions from the government of Canada? There is not a member of the house who will believe for a moment that such is the situation. Most certainly some advice, some instructions, some indications, have been given, and it would be helpful to us to know what they are. Let
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus us not have the answer that these are discussions which should not be rigid in advance. Of course they should not be rigid in advance. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) nevertheless did not hesitate to state to us certain aspects of Canadian policy at the time the Geneva conference was meeting. In fact he stated certain aspects of our policy on an earlier occasion before the conference even met. Here we have a very practical conference to deal with the problem of the world marketing of wheat under the international wheat agreement and there is more reason for giving us information because this is a business problem without some of those secret connotations of international discussions such as are taking place at Geneva.
It would be helpful to us and appropriate to know what the view of the government is with regard to these discussions and at least what they hope to attain at the conference even though their hopes may not be fulfilled. I also want to point out with reference to the remarks that have just been made that we are not touching this subject gingerly in any way. You know, I must admit there are some members of the Liberal party for whose opinion I have an increasing regard, but nevertheless they have absorbed the folklore of Liberalism without any of the corrective influences that would be presented by an opportunity to discuss some of the realities of history with them. In fact there are Liberals opposite who even seem to think that the wheat board is the product of the unlimited genius of the men opposite who have been extolled in such warm terms in the remarks we heard a short time ago.
Need it be recalled, just to deal with some aspects of his folklore of Liberalism, that it was the Bennett government that created the wheat board. In fact, while we do not always agree with the statements of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), it may be wise, in dispelling some of the visionary aspects of that folklore, to recall the simple, direct statement made by the Minister of Agriculture as recently as June 15, 1954, only yesterday, when he said, as found at page 6035 of Hansard:
The government of Mr. Bennett brought down a bill to provide for the compulsory marketing of western grain through a wheat board.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: But they did not pass the legislation.


George Alexander Drew: The legislation, Mr. Speaker, was introduced, and the legislation was the legislation which was carried forward by

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus this government. It is one of the few cases in which this government showed wisdom which we can commend.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was brought down on a voluntary basis.


George Alexander Drew: I admit this government did withdraw some of the rather good features of it. Nevertheless, the basic features were retained. This government brought it under government control and did not give that measure of representation to the farmers themselves that was in the original concept of that board as presented by the Bennett government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: History may be very untrue; read on from there.


George Alexander Drew: May I suggest that if we are going to have another private war at this end between the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), they carry it on between themselves. I accept the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that the government of Mr. Bennett brought down a bill to provide for the compulsory marketing of western grain through the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read on.


George Alexander Drew: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I said I was referring to a small statement made by the minister, and I am not going to read it all because everybody knows the Minister of Agriculture does not make short statements. I am not going to read the whole of this rambling statement. I have referred to this statement about the wheat board, and it is clear. Let me read this, however, from page 6035 of Hansard for June 15, 1954:
I must say, to the credit of the Bennett government of that day, that they brought down a bill which provided not only for compulsory marketing of wheat but compulsory marketing of all grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: But they did not pass it; go on and read it.


George Alexander Drew: We have heard the Minister of Agriculture on this subject many times, and undoubtedly he will be on it many times again. He has an opportunity to say what he likes, but surely he will not be critical if for once we take his words and accept them in their exact meaning. Incidentally, on this occasion they are clear and understandable.
May I just recall to the Minister of Agriculture that touching picture he once gave us of the three who sit together, and his words that Canada never needs to worry as long as these three hon. gentlemen are still here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: The applause from the other side, Mr. Speaker, will indicate that the other members commend that situation in which the members abdicate their responsibility and leave with these three hon. gentlemen the supreme authority over the affairs of their party. Nevertheless, I would recall that on that occasion the thing that prompted these very modest remarks by the Minister of Agriculture, in which he said that as long as he and the other two were there everything would be all right, was the fact that there had been a definite difference of opinion expressed by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This difference was resolved by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). It was the resolving of this difference that prompted the Minister of Agriculture to tell us all that, whatever difference might develop within that triumvirate, as long as the difference could be resolved by the Prime Minister all would be well in this difficult world.
The fact remains that we have something of the same kind today. I leave it there. If this private war is going to take place between the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Agriculture, then, let it take place. I simply want to point out, referring back to the folklore of Liberalism which I have mentioned, that we have the words of the Minister of Agriculture which indicate the extent to which there has been agreement in regard to the place of the wheat board. There has been agreement in regard to methods; there has been agreement in regard to the services that it has performed. So far as I am aware, that agreement extends into every part of this house.
One of the features in regard to the operation of that wheat board has been that, instead of a fixed floor price of the nature contemplated by the subamendment now proposed by the-


Mr. Knowles:: C.C.F. party.


George Alexander Drew: -C.C.F. party-I must admit that the names become transposed at times, and I do not know whether to call it the Liberal-Socialist or the Socialist-Liberal party, but we will call it the C.C.F. party. In regard to the C.C.F. party subamendment, may I point out that it refers to a fixed price which, under the situation that now exists, is unrealistic. This house, including the members of the C.C.F., have accepted a method of operation under the wheat board by which an initial price would be announced. It is true that that substantially had the effect of establishing a floor price. What we have pointed out is that for some years past

that initial price has been announced prior to the seeding in the spring. It has been announced at a time which made it possible for the farmers to know where they were. It has been announced at a time that helped, in some measure, the planning of operations on the farm during that year.
It has been pointed out, and I think bears repeating, that in 1950, for the 1950-51 crop year, the initial price was announced on April 5. In 1951, for the 1951-52 crop year, it was announced on May 4. In 1952, for the 1952-53 crop year, it was announced on April 8. In 1953, for the 1953-54 crop year, it was announced on April 27. This is June 16, and that initial price has not yet been announced. It is in relation to that fact, Mr. Speaker, and to the general absence of any statement which indicates that the government is dealing with that problem, that we have brought forward our amendment. We believe it states something that the house can support and should support, and that is the need for some action by this government to deal with this situation.
We believe that one of the essential steps is to follow out this earlier practice, even at this late date. We believe that, without another day's delay, the initial price should be set. Please let us hope we are not going to have a statement by the government that the independent body, the wheat board, still has not notified them. We know of the compelling arguments that are presented to the wheat board by the government in regard to matters of that kind. We have the evidence of it. We know quite well the government is in a position to announce, as the minister has announced over and over again in the past, this initial price. It should be done, and without further delay.
An added reason why it should be done is that we are confronted with a situation very similar to that facing farmers of the United States, but very unlike their situation in other ways. One thing that undoubtedly causes difficulty in the minds of the western farmers is the extent to which the land that is so similar, north of the border, grows similar crops under very dissimilar arrangements. In the United States the price paid is $2.21 per bushel under the arrangement which they have. There is something more, however, which we should not ignore. There is a limitation of crop production which our farmers have shown no willingness and no desire to accept. These are realities. I am simply making a statement of the situation that indicates why it is so essential that we have a clear statement of Canadian policy
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus and that we should not be just hanging on to the coat-tails of Uncle Sam at this time. Our position is different; the position of our farmers is different. The farmers of the United States do not feel the direct impact of these reductions in prices in the way it is felt by Canadian farmers. If there are to be further reductions, such as were at least contemplated in the statement made the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), then let us remember that it will be the Canadian farmer who will feel the direct impact of those reductions.
These are all reasons why there should be some action now which will give to our farmers and to those who are associated with them-to the servicing organizations and the transportation organizations both by rail and water and otherwise-some knowledge of what they may expect, and particularly in this new crop year which begins just six weeks from now.
Before closing my remarks may I refer to words that were spoken a few moments ago by the hon. member who preceded me in the debate. He reiterated a suggestion that has come from the other side of the house, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that this discussion should not take place because it is actually, in itself, harming our agricultural producers.
I do not question the hon. member's sincerity. Of course he was simply following members of the government in what he said-that "by their very action members on the other side are helping to drive down the price of wheat in the world market." I will admit that the remark was directed particularly to those who have been taking part in the private war. Nevertheless that remark had general application-"by their very action they are helping to drive down the price of wheat in the world market."
Then he did go on to make an observation which is very obvious. He said, "These traders know how much wheat we have". Of course they do. They are experts. They know how much wheat the department has, because that is their business. And then he said-and this is the remark upon which I place the greatest emphasis-"but they do not have the details of our economic position".
The hon. member has gone too far; he was carried away by his imagination. After all, why are the trade departments of all the embassies of the different countries established here in Canada, except to give those countries economic information about Canadian affairs? Do you not suppose they read every day the financial pages of our



$064 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus newspapers? Do you not think they read the trade reports issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce? Do you not think they read the excellent financial and economic comments produced regularly by the banks? Of course they do.
The fact is that those governments, and the traders operating under them, are fully informed in regard to the details of our economic position. And do not let anyone suggest for a moment that our friends beyond the iron curtain are not equally well informed on this subject, in case their position might be affected in any way by this matter.
No, Mr. Speaker, the facts are before the traders of the world, whether they be government traders or private traders. The facts are before the people of Canada to the extent that our people take advantage of the information available. But one thing that is not before us is what this government is going to do to deal with that situation. Admittedly they cannot adopt an inflexible or utterly unreasoning rigidity in the face of the world situation with which we are confronted, and which does present them with grave problems and difficulties.
May I say this-and in saying it I am sure others on both sides of the house join with me-that, whatever our political differences may be, we want our government to tackle this problem in a way that will be best for the farmers of Canada and best for Canadians generally. And we wish them well in the great task they have before them in dealing with this immensely important problem.
Mr. Speaker, the realities cannot be escaped. We have an unprecedented surplus. Our farmers are confronted with uncertainties. And they are confronted with strained credit problems, until there is a clear statement. The first urgent step is the declaration of an initial price. Beyond that is at least a statement as to the things that this government hopes to achieve through this parliament, under the international wheat board now meeting in London, and by their own action in the markets of the world.
To such extent as they are prepared to take us into their confidence we will certainly co-operate with them in every way we can. To such extent as they can assist and guide our farmers and our producers and our servicing organizations, I am sure they will receive their co-operation.
This is a problem affecting the whole of Canada. It must be dealt with in the interests of all Canadians. That is the purpose of our amendment, and that is the reason we have placed it before the house. For the reasons
[Stage Direction]

we have given we cannot support the subamendment. It is not dealing with the principle of floor prices. This marketing by the wheat board is something that has been accepted by all members of the house. The initial price is part of the accepted practice. You have had that initial price. We need no such subamendment as this, following the practice that has been adopted. And that is why we place before you a motion calling for action by the government at a time when action is so greatly needed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Wheat-Marketing of Surplus the other members of that party and perhaps of the government, is that there is now a necessity for a period of readjustment in the matter of prices, and that the farmers of western Canada should be prepared to lead the way in making that readjustment.
I want to quote his exact words because the hon. member complained this morning that what he had said had been misinterpreted. Here is what he said as reported at page 5793 of Hansard for June 10, 1954:
It so happens that we in western Canada are leading the way in this readjustment by having our prices come down.
Well, that is a very strange approach from a member who represents a wheat-growing area. But coupled with that, the whole tenor of his speech was that we cannot expect to hold the price at the level which our amendment suggests.
Now, in what position does that place the farmer? The fact is that over the years this government has asked the wheat growers of Canada to accept a lower price than the actual world market price at that time, and for the purpose of stabilization, as they called it during the war years. They said it was a matter of patriotic duty to produce and provide food for our allies. The farmers were told that their contribution, their sacrifice, if you will, was part of the national war effort and that the government would see to it that they were not left in the lurch, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said, after the war years. In order that that statement may not be challenged, let me give the exact words of the then prime minister of Canada. Speaking over the radio on December 4, 1943, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King said:
If to help win the war the farmers are asked to accept ceiling prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to assure them against an agricultural depression after the war.
Now, those are the words of the then prime minister of Canada in 1943, and they can be interpreted as nothing other than a direct promise that in compensation, or shall we say in appreciation of the sacrifices and the contribution the farmers were being called upon to make in order to assist the war effort in 1933, and subsequently, this government-or any other government, because I believe any prime minister who speaks on behalf of the nation speaks not only for the government of which he happens to be the head but for any other government which may subsequently follow-in return for that contribution in the interests of stabilization the farmers were to receive the floor price after the war years.
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

Now, it may be argued that they have a floor price in the sense that we have an initial price which is to be announced in the future, though we do not know when. But the question which comes up is whether the farmers are going to receive an adequate floor price which will compensate them or which will at least help them maintain their position in relation to the general price level in Canada. That is why I was so concerned when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said that we were leading the way in the price readjustment. Unfortunately it seems to me that no one is following that lead in Canada though it appears the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is quite satisfied that the wheat farmers shall be the ones to cut the prices of their products, perhaps as an example of what can be done in order to bring about an over-all downward price readjustment.
But who is following the lead? Let me refer to some other figures, and this is still within the purview of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I have some figures here which I have taken from the dominion bureau of statistics which show some of the prices of the manufacturing industries in Canada. Let us see whether they are taking part in this downward readjustment in which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is suggesting the farmers take the lead.
For example, taking the 26 major manufacturing industries in Canada-I could place all the categories on the record, but to save time I will not-it will be shown that for the year 1951 their net earnings were $1,548,300,000 compared with $1,005,200,000 in the average period 1946-50. This is an increase of over $500 million. Now, their profit, based on sales, averaged out in 1951 to 10-1 per cent, while during the period 1946-50 their average was only 9-7 per cent. The readjustment seems to be going forward, the prices are still rising and the trend is upward. Despite that, here we are being offered the recommendation that the wheat growers should lead the way in the readjustment downward. Where does that leave the farmer?
Let us take the profit on the basis of net worth, which I think is a better method of determining how they are doing. On the basis of their net worth, these 26 major manufacturing industries in 1951 made an average profit of 24-6 per cent. I give that figure because in a moment I am going to give some comparable figures in relation to the agricultural industry.
Perhaps it might be said that lumping all these industries together will not give a fair

sample, but in order that hon. members may not think so I am going to deal with some of the industries of which I have been talking, and I can give them all if necessary.
For example, starting with one which is supposed to be in a depressed position at the present time, namely, cotton textiles, their net earnings in 1951 amounted to $30-1 million, which represents a profit on sales of 9 [DOT] 8 per cent on their net worth or investment of 22-4 per cent. For the farm machinery companies there was a net earning of $38-1 million and a sales profit of 11 per cent on a net worth of 28-4 per cent. The petroleum refining industry had net earnings of $72,500,000, sales profit of 8 per cent, and on net worth of 14-3 per cent. The iron and steel industry had net earnings of $76-8 million, sales profit of 11-8 per cent, and on net worth of 25-1 per cent. The electrical equipment industry, which has been complaining for the last couple of years about lack of business, had net earnings of $72-5 million, sales profit of 9 per cent on a net worth of 27-8 per cent.
Now I come to pulp and paper, and might I just interject here that if the philosophy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were followed by the pulp and paper industry they might not have been so well. The minister objected to discussion between Canada and the United States on a price being set under wheat, and he characterized that as the setting up of a combine. But recent events as related in the newspapers show that the pulp and paper business was not averse to setting up a combine with the result that in 1951 it did rather well with a net earning of $317 million which on sales amounted to 23-4 per cent and on their net worth amounted to 34-2 per cent.
Then, coming to the automobile and parts industry, the net earnings here amounted to $87 [DOT] 9 million on sales of 9-6 per cent on a net worth of 47-1 per cent, so that they have done rather well and their readjustment has been upward from the period 1946-50. While I have not figures for 1953, because they are not yet available, I have no doubt that they are still doing very well.
I have given these profits as based on their net worth in order that we may make a comparison with the agricultural industry. I have here in my hand a publication which I believe will be accepted as authoritative. It is published by the department of political economy of the University of Manitoba, and it contains a study which was made in the Birtle-Shoal Lake area of Manitoba. The Minister of Agriculture will be familiar with
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus that area and I think he will agree that it is fairly representative of that province. The farm lands in that area are not the best in the province and they certainly are not the worst in the province. They may be accepted as being the average type of land in the province. Perhaps for that very reason they were taken by this department for the purpose of making a study. It included 78 farms which ranged in size from a half-section to in some cases five quarters or more in one unit. A study was made covering production expenses, income and so forth. Let me just give a summary to show what the finding of this department was on that question. Incidentally this was published in November of 1953, so it is quite recent. It was found that on these 78 farms the average capital investment-that is including land, farm machinery, et cetera-was $15,896; the average cash income was $4,756 and the average current expense for each year was $2,007. That leaves an average net income of $2,749 per farmer. If we allow the very reasonable figure of $2,000 as wages to the farmer-because there is nothing here included so far which would pay wages to the man who operates the farm-we find a net return of $749 on the capital investment of $15,896. If we do that percentagewise, we find that it is a percentage of net worth of 4-7 per cent. Let me come back to some of these other figures and compare them-


Mr. Byrne:: Go back to Tommy Douglas's figures. They are more important.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would appreciate hearing what the hon. member has to say.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I say: Go back to Tommy Douglas's figures.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am afraid that the hon. gentleman was not listening because I have already said that these figures were prepared and published by the department of political economy of the University of Manitoba. They were published in November, 1953.


Mr. Castleden:: He does not understand.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think it is a quite authentic and independent source and that there are no political implications here.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is fine.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As I say, that is a return on a net worth for these 78 farms representing I think the average in Manitoba of 4-7 per cent as compared with the automobile industry with 47-1 per cent, as compared with the pulp and paper industry with 32-2 per cent or as compared with the petroleum industry

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus with 14-3 per cent or the farm machinery industry with 28-4 per cent, and so forth. I think that sets out quite clearly the fact that the farmers so far have not been receiving their fair share of the national income. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has already stated that, in spite of the fact that the farmers represent approximately 20 per cent of the population in Canada, their share of the national income has been running, as most recent figures indicate, just slightly over 8 per cent. Taking all that into consideration, I do not believe it is at all unreasonable for this party or any party in this house to move that an adequate floor price be set under our basic commodity, namely wheat.
The Minister of Agriculture has given us in his usual delightful fashion a description of a meeting to which he spoke recently. I did not quite clearly catch where this meeting was, but anyway he said that the loudspeakers covered an area of 40 acres, that there must have been a large mass of people to occupy that area, and that after he had finished speaking and stated government policy on wheat he was told that he was dead right. Let me give the other side of the coin, shall we say. I have here a letter which I believe was received by every member of this house, dated June 15, from the Manitoba farmers union, who represent a large proportion of the farmers in Manitoba. No doubt their opinions will be the same as those of the Saskatchewan farmers union or of the farmers union in Alberta. Here is what they have to say. I wonder whether this will ring as if he was "dead right" according to the minister's statement. I quote from the letter:
The statement made recently by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe that the government is prepared to cut our wheat price again it necessary, was a shock to many western farmers, especially when it appears that the government is not prepared* to take any responsibility in the matter. It will be hard for western farmers to believe that the government expects them to compete with the U.S. treasury.
During the past two years, farm income dropped 23 per cent and this, coupled with the fact that while 20 per cent of the total Canadian population are engaged in agriculture they only receive 8'7 per cent of the national income, makes the outlook very serious for farm families. Recently farmers were forced to take another blow when the government slashed the price of wheat (by 17 cents per bushel in the past four months) -
That is apparently taking the 7 cent drop together with the 10| drop more recently. The letter continues:
-and is apparently prepared to go still further.
We are beginning to wonder how long it will take our government to realize that this will ruin western agriculture? During the war years we were told that our prices would be stabilized for the future-

And then follows the quotation from the prime minister of that day which I have already placed on the record. Then they follow that up by saying this:
What has happened to this promise? We still have the same government in power today, and the farmers feel that when a promise is made it should be maintained.
That is the opinion of a large body of farmers in my province.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will permit me to do so, I should like to make an interjection.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to enter into the argument as to whether the floor that is on wheat is high enough or not, but I want to say to the hon. member that the quotation he has made has no bearing whatsoever upon that question. The quotation he has made does not apply because wheat is about the only farm product upon which there was not a ceiling during the war time.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is an example of the type of interjection the Minister of Agriculture likes to make. But will he not agree with me to this extent? Will he not agree that it was the expressed policy of the government in 1943 that they were going to work towards the stabilization of the prices of farm products? The minister nods his head. I understand that nod means yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has not yet got the point. That statement which he has read-and which he is quoting and which he says the farmers union quoted-says that because there was a ceiling price put on certain products, there should therefore be a stabilization by putting on a floor price afterwards. Wheat is one product which that does not apply to. There was no ceiling on wheat during the period of the war.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker; it is true that that did not apply in 1943. But the minister certainly will not make the statement that that was true in 1946, 1947 or 1948.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has not yet got the point. There was no ceiling on the wheat price until 1945 when the war was ended.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I thank the minister. That is not what I am drawing to the minister's attention. What he has said may be said to apply as of December 4, 1943, when the former Prime Minister made his statement, but it cannot be said to apply from 1945 on because a price ceiling was imposed.


James Garfield Gardiner: You have not yet got the point. The statement you have read was to the effect that if we kept the price down

during the war we ought to hold the price level after the war. This is one product on which this was not done during the war.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Nonetheless the government in 1943 sold the farmers on the idea that if they would be satisfied to accept a lower price for their farm products during that period in the interests of stabilization the government would see to it that they would not lose in the post-war years because of having accepted such prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite prepared to follow your argument and to agree somewhat with it. I am only pointing out to you that you are quoting something which does not apply to wheat.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I agree, so far as the ceiling on wheat is concerned, that it did not apply until 1945, but it did apply in subsequent years. I think we can agree on that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement read "could not apply after 1945". The war ended in 1945 and there was no ceiling on wheat.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No; but under the British wheat agreement a ceiling was placed on wheat after the war ended. I think the minister will agree with that. I was about to point out that I believe it is a reasonable proposition for this party to ask at this time that an adequate floor price be placed under wheat. I want to be perfectly fair about the matter. There may be some difference of opinion as to what that price should be, and I was anxious to see at least one member from the Liberal ranks or a minister of the government rise in his place and say: The price you are suggesting is too high; we would suggest that a lower price, such and such a price, would be suitable. But that is not the basis on which they oppose the subamendment. They attack the subamendment on the basis that this parliament has no right to set a floor price under wheat, that it might mean subsidization. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) made the statement that the farmers did not want their product to be subsidized.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing. I think what I said was exactly the opposite, that we believe that the principle of the Agricultural Prices Support Act should be applied to wheat and that it should be applied in such a way that the farmers will be assured of getting their fair share of the national income, even if it does mean subsidization. I made it as plain as two and two make four. My hon. friend has no right to misrepresent my argument in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could make it plainer by voting for the subamendment.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


Mr. Noseworihy:: Vote for the subamendment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If I did not state correctly what the hon. member said I am quite prepared to accept his correction. I do so quite gladly because now we know that at least the hon. member for Rosthern agrees that, if necessary, the farmers' products should be subsidized by the nation. I think we agree on that point. I agree with him completely, and that is an excellent reason why he should vote for the subamendment.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have more faith in this government than I would have in that outfit over there.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not wish to interfere in any way with the faith of my hon. friend. I am quite happy to leave it to him. But the point I am getting at is that if the hon. member for Rosthern and some of his colleagues from Saskatchewan, Manitoba or elsewhere agree with us that, if necessary, wheat should be subsidized by the nation, that is a clear reason why they should support the subamendment. Some hon. members express a certain fear on the question of subsidization. I have heard that fear expressed in the house on more than one occasion. They say that the government will never agree to having the taxpayers subsidize the production of wheat. Members of the Progressive Conservative party have stated that they do not believe in the subsidizing of farm products, particularly wheat. If they wish to use that argument then they will have to go a little further and say that they also disagree with the subsidizing of gold production, which is a pretty costly proposition these days. Comparing the usefulness of gold and wheat, I see a much poorer case for the subsidizing of gold. I have always taken the position that if we continue to subsidize gold instead of food we will wind up with a mouthful of gold teeth and nothing to -chew on.
These hon. members would also have to oppose the subsidizing of the -coal industry, which runs into substantial figures. They would have to oppose the subsidizing of the steel industry, which in the past has run into substantial figures. They would have to oppose the whole tariff structure of Canada, which is one great complicated form of subsidization-that is all it is. All the manufacturing industries that enjoy such high protection are in effect being subsidized by the consumers of Canada. As I pointed out a few moments ago, the automobile industry enjoyed a profit of $87-9 million in 1951 which represents 47-1 per cent on their net worth. A good part of that large profit is in

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus the form of a subsidy paid by the Canadian consumer as the result of the tariff protection enjoyed by this industry. The tariff structure constitutes one of the biggest forms of subsidy in the country.
Therefore in order to be logical and to follow their beliefs through to a logical conclusion, all those who oppose the idea of the subsidizing of farm products would have to be equally opposed to every form of subsidization existing in the case of other industries and would have to favour the complete abolition of our whole tariff structure. Are they prepared to do that? I do not think there are many members of the house who would be prepared to go that far. They would say: No, we must maintain these forms of protection and subsidy in order to make sure that these industries have a fair chance to exist.
If that is the argument they wish to use, then I will go along with them and say: Let us extend that to cover agriculture and see to it that the production of basic commodities, the production of food, grain, livestock and other things, is put on a sound basis through a system of floor prices in order that stabilization of farm income may be assured. That is not asking too much. But when we propose that, what happens? I rather hesitate to get into what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) called the private war. Yet I feel that I must protest against certain statements made by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) yesterday which I resented very much. I did not wish to add to the confusion at that time by rising to my feet and asking him to withdraw. As reported at page 6008 of Hansard of yesterday, he said:
What I wish to say. Mr. Speaker, is that that is the situation with socialists generally; that is the trouble we have internationally, because you cannot make agreements with these people. They do not keep their half of the agreement. Possibly, if we got rid of that type of thinking in the world we would not be faced with this debate now.
That is a most astounding statement to be made by a supposedly responsible member of the house. We have been told that some of the things said on both sides of the house may have the effect of making the selling of our grain more difficult. I can imagine nothing that could make things more difficult for this nation to trade with the other nations of the world than a statement of that kind. The hon. member says that internationally agreements cannot be made with socialist countries because they do not keep their word. Does the hon. member realize the implications of a statement of that kind? Not many years ago there was a socialist government in Great Britain which did a great deal


more business with this country than their present government is doing. I am not saying that in criticism of the present government but it is a fact that they did a great deal of business with Canada for which both Canada and Great Britain were thankful.
You have the socialist governments of the Scandinavian countries. There were socialist governments in Australia and New Zealand. All of them have done business with Canada, and for a member of the Liberal party to stand up and say that we cannot deal with socialists because they do not keep their agreements will, in my opinion, do more harm in the international sphere, so far as Canadian trade is concerned, than anything which has been said in the house. I deplore that very much. If the hon. member is opposed to the amendment which we are proposing, and if he thinks it is unnecessary to place a floor price under wheat; if he is opposed to subsidization, if necessary, of food products, then I am quite prepared to hear his arguments. But when he attacks this party and attacks socialist governments generally all over the world-it may not be long before we may have a lot more socialist governments than now exist with whom we have to trade-then he is doing this country a great disservice. He is prejudicing our approach to these nations on the basis of good faith. I hope we shall not hear any more remarks of this type in this debate.
I may point out that the hon. member for Meadow Lake, who was so critical about the alleged inaccuracy of members in this house, made a statement in that same speech that the present government has reduced the national debt. Of course, he immediately amended that by saying that was in the nonwar years. I would refer him to page 1059 of the Canada Year Book for 1953. There he will find the national debt for 1945 listed at $15,700 million; for 1952 it was $17,252 million, which covers those seven non-war years. The increase shown is about $2 billion. Now, when a member can be $2 billion out in his statements, he certainly should not be critical of the alleged inaccuracy of other members.
In conclusion, I want to say this. We are proposing this amendment in good faith. We hope the members of this house on both sides will accept the principle of a floor price under wheat as a matter of national interest, not because we are pleading any special favours for the farmers, not because we are pleading poverty of the farmers, but because we believe that, in the interests of stabilization of the greatest and basic industry in Canada, the house should adopt this motion.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Meteorological division-
489. Administration, operation and maintenance. $6,963,110.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, this item is for the administration, operation and maintenance of the meteorological division and the total vote amounts to about $7 million for the present fiscal year. This is an increase of nearly $500,000 over last year's vote. I notice in the details at page 549 there are increases in such items as freight, express and cartage of about $40,000; in facsimile communications, an increase of $125,000; teletype an increase of $30,000; publication of "monthly record of meteorological observations" and other papers, an increase of about $20,000; and for office stationery, supplies and equipment quite a large increase of $85,000 for this year over last.
Will the minister explain why it is necessary to have this very large increase in this item for the present year? Will he also give us some idea of the present situation with regard to weather mapping in Canada which, I presume, comes under this vote? I believe we have a very efficient system. Perhaps the minister could give the committee a short summary of the present situation.


Mr. Chevrier:: This is, in fact, a large vote and there is, as my hon. friend says, an increase for which I think I can give a satisfactory explanation. In the first place, there is an increase of almost $500,000 in salaries which in itself accounts for a large portion of the increase to which my hon. friend refers. There is an increase of $125,000 with reference to facsimile communication, as he has pointed out, and that is for the new system of facsimile weather mapping introduced last year based at Dorval. It is a rather technical thing and I doubt if I can explain it fully, but the object of it is to centralize in one area our entire map analysis. In other words, the reports which come from the northernmost station of Canada down into the main operational airports are centralized in this one area through this facsimile system and it is possible in a matter of seconds to obtain the weather conditions from one end of the country to another. For example, when I assisted at the inauguration of this facsimile system at

Dorval, together with the chief of air staff, I think it was possible in less than a second to obtain reports from Winnipeg and Gander on the condition of the weather over this facsimile instrument. Of course, the cost of that is somewhat high, as my hon. friend will appreciate.
There is an increase in office stationery, supplies and equipment of $84,000 and that is attributable as well in part to the facsimile system because it is necessary to have a special kind of paper not only in the Dorval area but at all of these airports in Canada.
Repairs and upkeep of buildings and works show an increase of $21,000 but that, I think, can be explained by the increase in other votes in similar subdivisions due to the increase in the cost of material and the like.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction services-
495. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including construction work on municipal airports, $10,737,291.
Mr. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Chairman, I desire to direct the minister's attention to the airport at Crumlin, Ontario, which serves London and the great majority of the western Ontario counties. In November, in the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I raised the question in this house and pointed out that this airport at Crumlin was the only airport which could be considered to be a major one between Toronto and Windsor. I also pointed out that it served one of our largest commercial and producing areas, concentrated in a comparatively small area in Canada. Perhaps at this stage I might ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong because the details are exclusively in the knowledge of the government, and of many of them I have no knowledge. However, at that time it was my understanding that an appropriation was to be made for the extension of the runways at the airport at Crumlin on the basis-


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps my hon. friend will excuse me, but I do not quite understand him. Is he now referring to the London airport?


Robert Weld Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but we call it the Crumlin airport because it is actually located at Crumlin. At that time it was my understanding the government were giving consideration to the spending of certain sums of money for the development of this airport into one which could take the largest and fastest types of aircraft now being used.
When the estimates appeared I was therefore somewhat surprised to find that no provision had been made for the extension of the 83276-384J
Supply-Transport
runways to permit either military aircraft or the larger and faster types of civilian aircraft to use this field, and it is a matter of very great concern within the city of London, not only so far as the municipal council is concerned, but particularly as regards the chamber of commerce.
The problem has recently been accentuated by the rumours which have appeared to the effect that consideration is being given to equipping No. 420 squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force with a jet-type aircraft. If such is the case, and once again I would ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong, it would appear that jet-type aircraft cannot land or use the present facilities at the city of London airport. I might point out that No. 420 squadron of the air force is a most active squadron, training large numbers of personnel from London and district. In addition to that fact, there is located at this airfield or immediately adjacent to it one of the basic training centres operated by the air force for the training of NATO air personnel.
Once again I delve into the realm of conjecture. I am led to believe that certain overtures were made either by the department to the municipal authorities or the other way around, with respect to the future operation of this airfield. I am rising purely for the purpose of asking the minister to explain to us what has occurred, why there has been a diminution of interest, if such is the case, in the development of the city of London airport, and what the plans for the future are in so far as either military or civilian use of the airport is concerned.	,


Lionel Chevrier: I thank my hon. friend for his constructive intervention with reference to the London airport. Let me tell him that there is not the slightest indication on the part of officials of the department of lack of interest in that establishment. London has a very good airport-I have been there on at least two occasions-and it has many potentialities. Unfortunately, however, it is not one of the main major airports in Canada, and I do not say this in a derogatory sense at all. There are so many major airports in Canada that consideration has to be given to those first and foremost. It is a fact that in our first draft of estimates there was an item for the construction of a runway at London. But after consideration by treasury board, because of the demands that came from major airports and because of the over-all picture, it was decided not to pursue the matter and not to include it in the present estimates.
Then there was another feature which my hon. friend has raised, namely that having

Supply-Transport
to do with the R.C.A.F. It may very well be that the R.C.A.F. will require additional facilities at London. I am not competent to say whether that is so or not. But if additional facilities are required-and that was another matter that influenced treasury board in its decision-then national defence will ask us to build a runway. They will provide the funds and we will do it. That is generally the method by which we proceed. The decision is as I have stated it. It may be true that from a civilian standpoint it will be possible to include at a future date a sufficient sum of money to build a runway. However, I am frank with my hon. friend. I tell him what the decision is and I am afraid I cannot go any further,


Robert Weld Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, may I pursue this matter just one step further and ask the minister what was the outline of the negotiations, if any, which took place between the department and the city with respect to the taking over of the airport by the city? If there were any such negotiations, did that fact have any bearing on the subsequent disappearance from the estimates of any item for the extension of airport runways?


Lionel Chevrier: The only information I have is that to the authorities of the city we sent an officer who had some talks, but we have not had any information arising out of the visit of the Department of Transport official to the municipality.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Surveys have been made around Peterborough by the minister's department. Can the minister say what has been done with regard to the airport there? At present we have one which can take small planes. I just wondered whether the department was going to do something more for us.


Lionel Chevrier: Not at the moment, I am sorry to say. I am familiar with the situation because I have had several representations by both civic and other groups from Peterborough. In fairness to my hon. friend I may say that I believe he has also brought the matter to my attention. The point is that there are sites which might be adaptable for airport development. The decision of the department has been that in the case of a municipality, the municipality should make some contribution. At one time there was a question of assistance by way of groups other than municipal groups. While I have had representations to the effect that such contributions would be forthcoming, no firm offer has been made. To sum up the matter I would say this. There is the possibility of

development of airport sites in the Peterborough area. There would have to be representations either by the municipalities or by other groups. There have been some. However, there would have to be more firm representation before we would be in a position to say to what extent we could contribute to that project.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I thank the minister.


Mr. MacLean:: I should like to ask the
minister the position in connection with the Charlottetown airport. A year or two ago, I believe, there were negotiations between the minister's department and the city of Charlottetown with respect to extending the runways there and improving the airport generally. The minister is familiar with the amount of traffic that is borne from that airport and also with its inadequacy, especially from the point of view of the length of runways.
Then I had a more general question. Perhaps the minister could take it at the same time. I would appreciate it if he would bring us up to date on the position with regard to the Charlottetown airport and also if he would be kind enough to give the committee some information on the general revenue which is derived from some of the larger airports in Canada, from rentals or any other income from air lines and other users of the large airports. I should like to have an idea of what return there is on the investment, so to speak.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to review the position of the Charlottetown airport. My hon. friend will remember that when I was down to Charlottetown last year and met the mayor of the city together with one of the ministers of the Prince Edward Island government and some of the members of the legislature, my hon. friend was good enough to meet me at the hotel later on. The discussion centred around the policy of the government having to do with municipal assistance to airports. We viewed the location and agreed that it would be in the interests of aviation to extend the runway. There were two alternatives, but there was one alternative that our officers favoured; and I think on consideration the mayor and those interested on the island felt that it was the better of the two sites.
I outlined the policy. I indicated to the municipal authorities that the land would have to be expropriated by the municipalities and that we would provide the facilities. There has been some correspondence between the mayor and me-I now have to draw on my memory-the last of which outlined our

policy which is similar with reference to all municipalities. There has been no definite answer saying that the municipality would expropriate the land in question.
Although it has not come to me formally, there has been some suggestion that because this airport is on a trans-Canada route we should undertake to handle the whole expenditure which, in this case, would be quite considerable. That suggestion has not come to me formally and until it does I am not in a position to make any comment.
With reference to the second question my hon. friend asked, possibly I can pick out a number of the main airports. For instance, at Gander the revenue is $2,787,000, but I am sorry to say the expenditure is much higher than that. At Winnipeg the revenue is $137,000 and the expenditure is $74,000. At Toronto the revenue is $335,000 and the expenditure is $277,000. I think I should say in fairness to Gander that the position there is not comparable at the moment with the other airports, but I think in time the expenditure will be much lower than the revenue. At Dorval they break about even, with revenue being $765,000 compared with an expenditure of $800,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The figures the minister is now giving are for maintenance, are they not?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, operation and maintenance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe at the moment we are on item 495 which provides $10,737,291-


Lionel Chevrier: If I may interrupt, the question asked was what were the revenues for other major airports in Canada. I am giving the revenues, and perhaps I should not have added the expenditures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not critical of what the minister was giving. I simply wanted to be sure that that was what it was so that I could then ask him if he would indicate what portion of the $10,737,291 is being spent on the improvements now being made at the Winnipeg airport.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a considerable
amount. There is a new runway which will cost over a million dollars, and in the estimates we provide for the first stage of it. The contract has been awarded to a prominent contracting firm in Winnipeg and I think the work will start in the near future. There is a fairly lengthy list of other developments. There is the installation of high intensity runway lights which will cost over $50,000, and high intensity approach lights, $65,000. There is the establishment of emergency power facilities, $40,000. There are a number of other
Supply-Transport
smaller items, but the main item in this figure of $10 million odd is for a million dollar runway, a portion of which only is provided for in these estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that a case of lengthening a runway or rebuilding one?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a completely new runway.


Mr. Cardiff:: With respect to extending runways, I should like to ask the minister into what category the airport at Centralia falls compared with other airports in Canada. We had five airports in the county of Huron during the war and now there are two in full operation. We think they are quite important airports and I wondered what category they were in.


Lionel Chevrier: I also think they are of tremendous importance, but from a military standpoint only. They are not provided for in these estimates. We have no civil facilities at Centralia at all.


Robert Weld Mitchell: May I direct one or two further questions to the minister to clarify the position with respect to the London airport. First, what is the annual operating loss of the airport? Second, may I point out to him and ask for his comment on the fact that the city of London industrially is growing east. It must grow in that direction. As the minister undoubtedly knows, within the past four to five years a large heavily industrialized area has grown up immediately to the west of the airport. Unless steps are taken within the very near future to establish the London airport as a major airport, it is going to be encroached on by industry to such an extent that it may well be deemed advisable in the future that it not be accepted as a major airport.
There is a third problem concerning which I have no personal knowledge, but I understand there are certain topographical difficulties in connection with the development of the airport. Would the minister comment on his information in that respect?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the first question, the answer is that the annual operating loss was $60,000. As to the second question, I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to be able to deal with the details of airport development. There are some 200 airports in Canada, and while I indicated earlier I had been at London on two occasions it is some time ago. I know that it is a fast growing industrial centre, and because of what I have seen at both Toronto and Montreal with respect to the rapidity of industrial development in the last few years in the vicinity of Malton and

Supply-Transport
Dorval I would not attempt to prognosticate anything so far as development at London is concerned. All I can say is that we have London very much in mind. However, I hope my hon. friend will realize that we have got to give attention to the major transcontinental airports. I know that T.C.A. is particularly interested in London. I know that T.C.A. would like to have a cross-country run between Montreal and Windsor with stops at Cornwall, Kingston, Belleville, Oshawa, Toronto and London.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why not include Peterborough?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think Peterborough is in that line of operation. Perhaps we should reserve that for C.P.A. However, in any event I think these are matters which will have to wait their turn. I have no doubt that London stands right in the centre of an area which will benefit, but I cannot say how soon we can get to a runway or other additional facilities for London at this time.


Walter Adam Tucker: Would the minister tell the committee what has happened with respect to the administration building at the airport at Saskatoon which, as he knows, is in the constituency of Rosthern.


Lionel Chevrier: When I was there recently pretty fair progress had been made. As the hon. member for Rosthern knows, the contract was awarded to an excellent contractor and it is expected that the terminal building will be ready for operation this fall.


Mr. Barneif:: I wonder whether the minister can make a statement as to what progress is being made towards the establishment of more adequate civilian facilities at the Comox airport? Is he in a position to make a statement at this time?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that is a military station. That matter is now under discussion with the air force which has it in hand, but just what it is proposed to do I do not know. It is not a civilian airport. My officer informs me that facilities will be installed some time this year by the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Nixon:: Do I understand that when an airport is built on a main line of T.C.A. the entire expenditure is paid by the department?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not answer affirmatively in a broad way. It depends on the circumstances in each case. Some airports right on the transcontinental route are owned by the municipalities. The municipalities make a substantial contribution toward them, but most of the expenditures are made by the Department of Transport for runways,
'Mr. Chevrier.]
lighting facilities, meteorological service and the like. The contribution of the municipality, as a rule, is their retention of the land and then the operation of the airport itself. What is done from time to time is a contribution to a municipality in an isolated area. I would not take it that my hon. friend's constituency is in that category, but it is, I know, in one of the important parts of Ontario.
As my hon friend knows, we have in the past used the United States field on the T.C.A. run. There is no assurance that will always be the case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
497. Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations. $93,300.
Mr. Herridge:: The Castlegar airport committee wish me to express their appreciation of the consideration the minister has given, and the government, to the needs of a first-class airport in the Kootenays. The construction of this airport, they feel, is an example of the ideal type of co-operation between all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. They have asked me also to express their great satisfaction at the work and co-operation of the minister's officials, and their great satisfaction with the work done by the contractors.
This piece of work has been carried out to the satisfaction of all concerned. I might say to the minister that the airport was opened, as he knows on May 30. There were 15,000 and 16,000 people who attended the opening. There were 5,320 cars driven on the grounds. This is a great asset to the Kootenay district, which we all appreciate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
493, Contributions towards airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $240,000.
Mr.   Patierson@: On a number of occasions during this session representations have been made to the government concerning the various needs of the Fraser Valley constituency. I regret that those representations have not, in every case, been considered favourably, for I assure you that they have been very commendable. However, there have been some occasions when we have received favourable consideration. I should like to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of my constituency, on this occasion. In the list of items on page 561, under vote No. 498, there is an amount of $130,000 for assistance to the city of Chilliwack, and the township of Chilliwack, British Columbia, for airport development. This airport has become increasingly necessary and valuable

in the field of civil aviation. On behalf of my constituents, I should like to thank the minister for the favourable consideration given and for the inclusion of this item in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air transport board-
501.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $274,089.
Howard Charles Green: I take it that one of the main objectives of the air transport board is to promote civil aviation in Canada. It would seem that the main function of this governmental body is to carry on work of that kind. Would the minister explain why there is not a more determined effort to give government flying work to the flying companies. Apparently quite a lot of government flying is done by the R.C.A.F. It does seem to me that some of this could be turned over to the civilian companies.
For example, I got a return earlier in the session which showed that the R.C.A.F. had carried for the Iron Ore Company of Canada, which as the minister knows is the company developing the northern Quebec and Labrador iron ore deposits, 989,432 pounds of cargo and 121 passengers, and had done 181-15 hours of flying, for which they were paid. My information is that there were civilian companies in a position to do that flying. Apparently the Iron Ore Company came to the government with a story that there was great need for fast action. They may have felt that the civilian companies would charge a little more than the R.C.A.F., but it does seem to me there should be an explanation as to why private work of that kind is taken away from a private flying company.
Surely, we are not financing the air force to do work of that kind. This seems to me to be one way of fostering the development of civil aviation in Canada, which after all is the basis of the whole industry. I was not in the east at the time, but I understand there were press reports to the effect that one member of the air transport board had objected, and had taken the position that this work should have been done by a private company rather than by the R.C.A.F. It would appear that he was correct.
There is other work being done, such as flying into these meteorological stations which come under the Minister of Transport. I understand that is being done by the R.C.A.F. Why should it not be possible for flying of that type to be done by the private companies? Then, again, there are the ice patrols on the Atlantic coast, and that work is done by the R.C.A.F. I see no reason why it could
Supply-Transport
not be done by the private companies. The United States has a different policy. There they give every encouragement to the private firms, and I believe in the continental United States they even have a lot of defence force flying done by the civilian companies.
The minister's department is the one that should be looking after the promotion of civilian flying. The defence department can look after the air force. I do not understand why more aggressive steps are not taken by the Department of Transport to see that flying of the type I have mentioned is done by private Canadian companies.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is quite right in his assumption that the civil aviation division of the Department of Transport should give every encouragement to civilian flying. I can assure him that we do. I wish my hon. friend knew what co-operation and co-ordination there is between the air transport board and officers of the Department of Transport and groups of civilian flying organizations, flying clubs, IATA, ICAO, and the many other groups. It is the object of the officials in the department to make sure that civilian flying is given every opportunity.
We do see to it that government work is given to civilian companies. In fact we have a directive that goes to every department of government indicating to all those departments using flying services that they must ask civilians for service. That directive has had the approval of my colleagues in the government. Further than that, officials in the other departments see to it that that directive is put into effect.
Now, that is not the case in connection with the R.C.A.F. or defence work. It is not possible for this department to control the activities of the Department of National Defence.
My hon. friend has asked about flying in connection with the meteorological stations in the north. Those stations that are concerned with the Department of National Defence are handled by that department; and I do not think my hon. friend would expect it to be otherwise. After all, these are joint operational weather stations under the plan between Canada and the United States, and they are pretty close to being on the secret list. It is felt that they should be serviced by the R.C.A.F.; and they have been. I think there is a valid reason for it.
I believe my hon. friend's information with respect to ice patrol is incorrect, because ice patrol on the St. Lawrence to my recollection has always been given to a civilian company. In fact this year it was Maritime Central that had it; and I believe Northern Wings may have had it on a previous occasion.

Supply-Transport


Howard Charles Green: What about the Atlantic coast Mr. Green: But did the air transport board as distinguished from the St. Lawrence? make any investigation with the civilian
companies to find out whether planes were Mr. Chevrier: On the Atlantic coast we available? have given a number of contracts for ice
patrol to Maritime Central.	Mr. Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: And Hudson bay?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to answer with respect to Hudson bay at the moment. But I do know that on the Atlantic coast it has gone to Maritime Central.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister look into the situation on Hudson bay?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; I believe I can get the information almost at once. Then, turning to the Hollinger contract, let me say the position was that Hollinger-Ungava advised us that they could not obtain the services of civilian air lines, and for that reason the company saw fit to ask the Department of National Defence to do it. That department had to make some charge, and that charge was higher than that for which civilians would have done it.


Howard Charles Green: I think not. The rate the R.C.A.F. charged was 42 cents per ton-mile. I understand that is below the ordinary civilian rate for that work. And I am told, further, that private planes were available. I asked the Minister of National Defence about it when his estimates were being considered. His reply was that the manager had phoned him, pointing out that he was in a great hurry and that this was work of strategic importance. Therefore the R.C.A.F. took it over. The Minister of National Defence had nothing to say about there being no civilian planes available.
I believe a ruling was made on the point by the air transport board. The Minister of National Defence told me that before he allowed the R.C.A.F. to do the work he got clearance from the air transport board.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, he would get clearance through the air transport board only if it was clear that there were no civilian air lines able to do it. The information the chairman of the air transport board gives me-and he is now sitting before me-is that on that occasion Hollinger-Ungava had advised they could not obtain the services of civilian air line companies.
Then, added to that, my hon. friend reminds me, is the statement given to him by the Minister of National Defence that a portion of the work

perhaps a great portion of it- was strategic. That may have prompted the decision that was taken in this instance.


Howard Charles Green: For example, did they inquire of Maritime Central Airways as to whether planes were available for that work?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, they did. They inquired not only of Maritime Central Airways but they also inquired of two or three other companies on the north shore that might have been able to take on that work.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the department will be on the alert in the future to prevent this sort of thing happening. I do not believe there was anything in the argument that this was emergency work. I cannot see how there would be anything about it that could be considered in the nature of an emergency. It is a civilian undertaking consisting of the opening up of iron ore deposits and the building of a railway. If they have the right to go to the Department of National Defence and get air force planes to do their flying, then there are dozens of other firms in Canada which have just as much right to use the service offered by the R.C.A.F. I hope the minister's department will be very careful about giving permits of this kind in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air transport board-
754. Subventions for air carriers, as detailed in the estimates, $20,000.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to have an
explanation of this item.


Lionel Chevrier: This is the last payment of a subsidy of $100,000 to Queen Charlotte Airlines Limited. My hon. friend will recall that during the course of the winter, operations of Queen Charlotte became difficult. They had been in a difficult position the year before. It was brought to the attention of the air transport board that they could not carry on unless they had some assistance. The air transport board investigated the matter and reported to the government that it felt it was desirable that under the terms of the Aeronautics Act assistance should be given to Queen Charlotte Airlines for another year because of the isolated and northern areas on the Pacific coast as well as on Vancouver island that they had to service. This is the last of five payments of $20,000.


Howard Charles Green: Has there not been some quarrel on the west coast between this and another firm about service to Kitimat?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What is the situation?


Lionel Chevrier: The situation has been ironed out, and I understand everything is satisfactory. The procedure that was taken under the Criminal Code and the lawsuit in the civil court has now been withdrawn; and my understanding is that the Department of Transport officers and the Pacific Western Airlines are now on the best of terms.


Howard Charles Green: They are not shooting at each other any more?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
502.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $952,030.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in support of representations that have already been made at this session with respect to the need for a greater number of grade crossing separations in this country. Other hon. members have given statistics and examples as to the loss of life that takes place because of accidents between trains and automobiles. It does seem to me that it may be necessary to revise the formula or to change the policy so that a large number of grade crossings at which accidents are taking place might be eliminated as level crossings.
I buttress what I am trying to say in connection with this matter by drawing attention to one particular level crossing to which I have referred in the house on a number of occasions. I refer to the point where the heavily travelled thoroughfare between the city of Winnipeg and the town of Transcona crosses the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That crossing is actually within the city limits of Winnipeg but, as I pointed out, it is a main thoroughfare between those two communities. On one previous occasion, after I had raised this question a number of times, the minister pointed out to me that the crossing in question is protected by gates that come down halfway across the thoroughfare, and also by a signal system which operates as well as such a system can operate. It is my contention that that is really not good enough. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of August 15, 1953, which reports a tragic accident which took place on August 14, at that crossing. I say it was a tragedy. A gentleman who lived in Transcona died as a result of the accident. What I wish to point out is that this accident shows up the inadequacy of those halfway gates, signals, bells, lights and what-have-you.
Supply-Transport
According to the report in the Winnipeg Free Press, this man was driving from Transcona to Winnipeg and stopped at the crossing because there was a train travelling east. He waited of course until the train went by, but just as the train went over the crossing he started his truck to move west on into Winnipeg. The noise of the train travelling east made it impossible for him to hear another train that was coming west at the same time. He thought the road was clear, but what happened was that he drove right into the path of this oncoming westbound train. The newspaper report indicates that the man lost his life and that the truck was demolished.
I simply cite that instance, along with others that other hon. members have been speaking about during the discussion of the minister's estimates, to point out the inadequacy of signal lights, bells and even gates. What is needed at crossings such as this, where there is heavy traffic, is a grade separation. I point out that it is a very busy spot, where the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway east and west crosses the heavily travelled thoroughfare between Winnipeg and Transcona.
I know that one of the other answers the minister has given on previous occasions is that this case and others like it should go before the board of transport commissioners, and that whether or not a separation could be made depends upon whether the municipalities and the railway concerned are prepared to put up the necessary money. That being the case, it seems to me that some revising of that formula, some revising of government policy in connection with this matter, is indicated. What happened here happens far too often across the country. Because of our responsibility for protecting life and limb in this country, I hope that something will be done to revise that policy so that more of these grade crossings can be eliminated.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say I think the hon. member and the committee will get a great deal of satisfaction from the report on the grade crossing investigation which I shall table before the end of the session. It is a lengthy report, and it makes a number of recommendations, all of which I think are to the good, recommendations regarding an amendment to the Railway Act. It would be well if the committee and the government as well had an opportunity of studying the document before the next session, because it has come down too late in this session to take any action on it. I hope, now that I have given that assurance, the committee will
6080

Supply-Transport
not enter into a discussion on individual grade crossings, because quite a number of them have been discussed earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I understand the minister to say that he is going to table a copy of that report at this session?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and it will contain some very vital recommendations, many of which -I will go further and say I hope most of which-we shall be able to implement by way of legislation; but I cannot at this stage be prognosticating government policy. Since I have said that, I would hope that hon. members would be reasonable in their discussion of this because, if my recollection serves me right, there are 33,000 level crossings in Canada, and I know there are many in each constituency, and we could go on at some length discussing them. I would not say this if I were not going to table the report, which I assure the committee is an excellent document.


John Angus MacLean: What precautions will be taken when new railway lines are built, such as those proposed to be built in the near future, to prevent the building of level crossings that at a later date will have to be eliminated at a great expense?


Lionel Chevrier: Most of the railways that are being built and have been built in the last several years are built in the wilderness, so that the question does not arise and will not arise until the population in those areas increases far more than it is now.


John Angus MacLean: What I mean to say is that provision should be made so that that does not occur. Perhaps liaison with the provincial departments of highways and municipalities could be brought about so that proper provision might be made for at least some of the railway crossings that cross main highways.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I am afraid the minister is forever going to associate me with the Credit-ville crossing. I have mentioned this level crossing on various occasions in the house and I have had some correspondence with the minister on it, which he has always received sympathetically. An hon. member to my left thanked the minister earlier this afternoon for airports and assistance to some other ports in the country. I hope that this time next year I shall be in a position to do the same with respect to this Creditville crossing which is located seven miles east of Woodstock.
In view of the remarks the minister has just made, I do not intend to make any extensive remarks, but I know that there are many level crossings in Canada. I think this is

probably one of the worst, and from an economic point of view would be one of the most easily eliminated. Since I have sent the minister a copy of this, for the purpose of the record I would like to read briefly from the London Free Press of Friday, June 11, at page 10:
The C.N.R. crossing on No. 2 highway near Creditville, commonly called, "suicide crossing" has been the scene of 24 accidents resulting in one fatality, 10 injured and damage estimated at $8,425 in a little over a year.
The article goes on to cite some further information. I might say that these statistics are not quite up to date, because since June 8 there have been two additional deaths and several injured at this crossing. That damage figure of $8,425 does not include the damages awarded in extensive and expensive litigation. I have already mentioned it several times, and I hope the minister will consider it with some sympathy.
In the neighbouring city of Stratford someone wrote a book called "Renown at Stratford". I hope someone will write a book about this crossing and call it "Carnage at Creditville".


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope in the recommendations which have been made there is a suggestion that the freight cars be painted along the bottom of the side so that there will not be so many of these crossing accidents in which the automobiles crash into a stationary train, especially on a rainy night. That is how a great number of these accidents take place.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to anticipate what is in the report.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I thought you knew what was in it.


Lionel Chevrier: I know what the recommendations are but I think perhaps they should be made public when the report is tabled.


Mr. Fulton:: Would the minister comment on the possibility of providing in the case of individual railway construction that where the main line of a railway meets a highway there shall be from there on either an underpass or an overpass. Would it not be possible to provide for that in the bill covering railway construction?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a discussion of that very point in the report which will be tabled although I am not quite sure whether there is a recommendation. However, since there has been a discussion on the point I hope my hon. friend will be prepared to allow the matter to stand meantime.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister, before he leaves for the St. Lawrence seaway development project, might leave this indelible mark on the transport legislation of Canada. In fact, it might well be his valedictory to introduce legislation to that effect. That would seem to be most appropriate because otherwise we are going to go on having these jurisdictional conflicts between the province and the dominion as to whose responsibility it is to provide for crossings or underpasses. Surely it could be clearly provided-the minister should not get annoyed because we wish him well in his new appointment.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is getting annoyed. I am not getting annoyed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the minister looks cross.


Lionel Chevrier: How could I look cross at my hon. friend?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear the minister say that. I would like to see him do something about this because this is the last opportunity we will have to discuss this proposition with the minister, who has held his present position for ten years or so and is thoroughly familiar with the problem, more so than anyone else will be for a number of years. He is well aware of the difficulties which surround this question of final responsibility, and whether it is the responsibility of the province to put a road under the railway or the responsibility of the railway to put a road over the highway. Surely it is about time some legislation were enacted which would lay this down clearly with respect to future railway construction. It seems to me to be reasonable that in the case of a main line it should be clearly designated that such a line will be the joint responsibility of the railway and the province with respect to providing a grade crossing over that line.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am sure no one knows better than my hon. friend the great difficulties surrounding this problem and the government was made fully aware of them after it received certain representations from the board of transport commissioners. That is why we asked the board to study the whole railway-highway crossing problem and matters relating thereto. The board have studied this question and my answer to my hon. friend is to let us see what the board recommends in the report which will be tabled before the end of the session. I have obtained permission from my colleagues in the government to give the house the assurance that it will be tabled. But it must be printed in English and in French and there are quite a number of 83276-3854
Supply-Transport
copies to be made. It is not yet ready but I hope it will be on, shall I say, Friday, and if not then early next week. If perchance the house were to adjourn or prorogue before the report is tabled I will see to it that each member of the house gets a copy of the report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope the minister will insist on its being tabled in time so that he may introduce some recommendations with respect thereto, because I can think of no more lasting memorial-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Is this the time for
obituaries?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -than legislation dealing with this difficult and vexing question which is of interest not only to his own province but to every province of Canada and to those of us who have to travel the highway and cross railway tracks. Without making any commitment I might say that I would be glad to receive the minister's report and his recommendations; for in view of his long experience I think his recommendations would be quite sound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-[DOT]
503.	Administration, $160,520.
Howard Charles Green: When will the annual report of the Canadian maritime commission be available? That report covers the year to March 31 and under the act the government has only three months in which to table it. Will we be able to get it before the house prorogues?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed it will be ready for tabling before the end of the session.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell the committee whether all of the Canadian deep-sea cargo vessels for which approval for transfer to the United Kingdom registry was sought have now been transferred?


Lionel Chevrier: All the applications that have been made to the maritime commission have been approved by the commission for furtherance to the British ministry of transport, and all except two have been approved by the British ministry of transport.


Howard Charles Green: When all those ships have been transferred to the United Kingdom registry what will be the number of deep-sea cargo vessels on the Canadian registry? I dealt with this on May 13 as reported at page 4706 of Hansard and my information at that time was that by the time all these transfers had gone through there would only remain 21 dry cargo deep-sea vessels in Canada's merchant fleet. I would like to have the minister

Supply-Transport
verify these figures. I will give him the list. Once these transfers have gone through the total number of deep-sea dry cargo vessels, which, of course, would not include the tankers, would be 21, and of that number 7 would be engaged in coastal trade and not in deep-sea service. Another 8 would comprise the Canadian National Steamships fleet, and I understand there would be only two of the wartime 10,000-tonners left in deep-sea service, one 4,000-tonner built in wartime, and 3 other vessels, none of which would be modern ships. Can the minister tell me whether or not those figures are accurate? If not, can he give me accurate figures in those categories.


Lionel Chevrier: As far as I can ascertain, the hon. gentleman's figure is as accurate as we can have it at this moment, namely, that there are 21 dry-cargo vessels but all of them are deep-sea and none of them are coastal.


Howard Charles Green: I said "are engaged in the coastal trade". I am informed that seven out Of the 21 are not engaged in the deep-sea trade but are engaged in the coastal trade. That would leave only 14 Canadian vessels in the deep-sea trade.


Lionel Chevrier: The information I have is that four are engaged in the coastal trade and that the others are engaged in ocean trade.


Howard Charles Green: How many of the 10,000-tonners built during the war are engaged in the deep-sea trade? The figure I gave the minister was two.


Lionel Chevrier: It is difficult to give a firm answer because of the position of the transfers and the applications that have been made.


Howard Charles Green: I mean where the transfers have gone through.


Lionel Chevrier: Assuming that they have gone through, there will be about three or four 10,000-tonners engaged in the deep-sea trade and three in the coastal trade.


Howard Charles Green: How many of the 4,000-
tonners?


Lionel Chevrier: One in the coastal trade and eight in the deep sea trade.


Howard Charles Green: Will those eight all be Canadian National Steamships vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: I think they will be.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact that the Canadian deep-sea fleet will be the smallest that it has been in 35 years?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to say. I would have to go back to the figures I had on the

original debate. In the post-war periods I think it has been at a low level compared with war periods. But having regard to other countries, the comparison is good. When one considers that we will be able to call on the ships that have been transferred-some 91 ships or more to the United Kingdom-under the NATO plan whereby ships are to be pooled, and having regard to the circumstances in this peacetime situation in which we find ourselves, I cannot say that the position is detrimental.


Howard Charles Green: That is a statement which hardly reflects the actual condition, I am afraid. However, have any of these ships which have been transferred to the United Kingdom registry been modernized or is there any arrangement or plan under way for changing those vessels to modern cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that there is a new cargo vessel now building in the United Kingdom for a Canadian owner and that two others are in contemplation. These will add three ships to the merchant fleet.


Howard Charles Green: Will they be under United
Kingdom registry?


Lionel Chevrier: They will be under the
Canadian flag.


Howard Charles Green: Are they replacing ships which have been transferred to United Kingdom registry or are they new ships for Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: They are new ships.


Howard Charles Green: No attempt whatsoever is being made to convert the ships which have gone to United Kingdom registry into modern cargo vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: There have been some
applications. There is one application that I can think of that is under consideration but it has not been dealt with definitely yet.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government made any change whatever in its policy with regard to the merchant marine since the statement of the minister on November 12 last year? At that time he set out the policy. Under that policy as announced there has been no improvement in the situation of which I am aware. From the minister's answers today it is perfectly obvious that the Canadian deep-sea cargo fleet has been liquidated. As he says, we have three or perhaps four old, 10,000-ton wartime freighters. So far the result of this policy has been nil having regard to Canada's procuring a modern deep-sea fleet. I think that is one of the greatest tragedies in the post-war period. The minister tries to compare our position with that

of other nations. But the fact is that Switzerland is going to have a much greater merchant navy than Canada. That fact just shows how ridiculous the situation is. Is the government making any change in the plan, or is the same old situation to exist?


Lionel Chevrier: I would rather put it this way: There has been no change since the later of the two statements.


Howard Charles Green: What was that?


Lionel Chevrier: Since the later of the two statements I made in the House of Commons. My hon. friend asks if there has been any change since my statement in November. I made another statement. My hon. friend has made several speeches to which I have had to reply, the latest of which was on the first item of these estimates. I can say this. There has been no change since that time, and the position remains as it was when I made that intervention. I think it would be some three weeks ago; it might be a little bit less or it might be a little bit more. I then gave the reasons for the decision. I hope my hon. friend will not invite me to go into the whole policy again. It has been put on record twice. I have given him frank answers to the questions he put. There is no change in the policy. That is all I can say other than this, as I emphasized the last time I spoke: The matter is still under review. I cannot repeat now why it has been impossible to subsidize ships either from a capital standpoint or from an operational standpoint. However the position today is substantially what it was about three weeks ago.


Howard Charles Green: I have one other question. How would the minister propose to man any of these ships that were brought back from United Kingdom registry, now that the Canadian seamen have been dispersed to other jobs all over the country?


Lionel Chevrier: We have a million tons of other shipping-coastal and inland lakes shipping-that gives us the nucleus from which to get men.


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to prolong the discussion any further, Mr. Chairman. The minister knows exactly where we stand on this question. I hope the cabinet will give further consideration to this problem once the house has prorogued. By the time we come back next fall or after the new year I hope there will have been adopted or worked out a policy which will bring about the objective placed before the government by its own maritime commission several years ago, namely, that Canada would have
Supply-Transport
a deep-sea merchant fleet containing a nucleus of modern, fast, cargo vessels. I am afraid it is too late. I am afraid that the die has been cast and the situation cannot be remedied. Perhaps the minister is right that consideration even at this late date would prevent this tragedy occurring, and I do hope he will give the whole question further consideration.


Mr. Pearlces:: Have we any oil tankers sailing under the Canadian flag other than those of the Royal Canadian Navy?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, we have eleven.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think this is the appropriate item for me to ask this question. As the minister knows, since the C.P.R. discontinued the steamer service on the Arrow lakes-


Lionel Chevrier: That comes under the next item, the subvention item.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Oh, I am very hopeful.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
504.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $4,147,725.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the minister knows, since the Canadian Pacific Railway Company discontinued the steamer service on the Arrow lakes the residents of the upper Arrow lakes have been without any form of commercial water transport and have suffered great inconvenience. However the flame of hope has been kept alive in their breasts owing to periodic announcements by the minister of public works of British Columbia and certain press statements that negotiations are proceeding with the minister's department or the maritime commission with respect to a subsidy or a joint subsidy. Can the minister inform the house what has happened in connection with that application?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I have been in communication with the minister of public works of the province of British Columbia who is arranging for an application for a subsidy on the Arrow lakes. The matter is now before the maritime commission for study.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret to say that owing to the decision of the house with respect to the last redistribution bill the area about which the hon. member for Kootenay West speaks is no longer in my constituency, but I should like to say a word. There is, I think, no more romantic or scenic area in the whole Dominion of Canada than the Arrow lakes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Come down to Bonavista.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Bring your sou'wester.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Nowlan:: So speaks the old salt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course I am sure that the area represented by the minister who has just spoken is scenic, but unfortunately it is fogbound for one half of the year and icebound for the other half, which seems to me to have dictated the state of mind of the Secretary of State.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is more than one kind of fog.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was speaking of an area of Canada which is neither fogbound nor icebound. I am not going to keep the committee for long, but I want to say that in the first place I cannot understand the apparent lack of interest taken in this area by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is one of the pioneer districts in the province of British Columbia, particularly in the interior, and I cannot help but think that if the Canadian Pacific Railway had been a little more aggressive in their requests to the federal government we might have had a subsidy for the continuation of the steamer service on the Arrow lakes. Whatever the decision may be on the merits of the application, it is one of the most scenic tourist areas of the whole province and of the whole dominion. It is not only one of the most scenic areas, it is one of the oldest routes of communication between the prairie provinces and the Pacific coast.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Since 1811.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon. member for Kootenay West points out, since 1811. Whether it is because of lack of interest on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway or lack of understanding on the part of the federal Department of Transport I do not know. I do not care to assess the responsibility, but it seems to me that it is the greatest pity-


Lionel Chevrier: In view of what my hon. friend said a moment ago, surely it cannot be lack of interest in the Department of Transport.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then what the minister is indicating is that the Canadian Pacific Railway has not pursued actively enough its request for a subsidy.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not indicating that at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I wish the minister would indicate exactly what he does mean. As I say, I am not prepared to assess the responsibility. I speak only from the point of view of one from the interior of the province of

British Columbia. Shortly there is to be a conducted tour, if I may call it that, of members of parliament and their wives to the province of British Columbia, and I regret exceedingly that they are not going to go down from Revelstoke through the Arrow lakes to the constituency of the hon. member for Kootenay West and from there back up through the Okanagan to Kamloops and on down to Vancouver.
I simply want to support the request made by the hon. member for Kootenay West for consideration by the federal Department of Transport of an adequate subsidy to enable the company to continue its service on the Arrow lakes which has been one of the pioneer routes through British Columbia and has been in continuous operation since 1898. From the point of view of both tourist and commercial activities, it would be a great pity if the service were to be permanently discontinued.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister tell the committee what success has been achieved in the discussions respecting the reducing of congestion on the subsidized route between Wood Island, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia. I realize that a new boat is being built, but I am thinking of the immediate problem for this summer and next summer until the new boat is put into service.


Lionel Chevrier: There have been a number of discussions between officials of the company, Northumberland Ferries, the government of Prince Edward Island and the maritime commission. A number of suggestions have been made to meet the increased traffic during the course of the present season. One of the first suggestions made was a very excellent one which the commission was prepared to accept but on proceeding further it was found that some of the conditions could not be met by the applicant. I hesitate to go into the details because they concern a private financial undertaking on the part of Northumberland Ferries. However, I believe the matter is being given additional study by the commission now.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister state what company receives the subvention and provides the service between Pictou, Charlottetown and the Magdalen islands which is listed in the details, and what is the frequency of the service?


Lionel Chevrier: 
George Randolph Pearkes: It is with fear and trembling that I ask what is the reason for the reduction of $100,000 under western local services. Surely that would have nothing to do with the service on the west coast of Vancouver island, would it?


Lionel Chevrier: The reduction concerns the Canadian Pacific Steamships subsidy and was brought about because the ship was withdrawn.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, but if a subsidy were provided might they not be able to find another ship? The situation on the west coast of Vancouver island is serious. There are many places you cannot reach by road. These people have been there for nearly a century now and they have had to depend entirely on the steamship service. For instance, I have in my constituency quite a flourishing fishing and logging village, Port Renfrew. The people there are dependent upon their mail and all their freight coming in by the steamship service. Unless they are able to use the facilities of the private logging companies they are dependent upon the steamship service going up the west coast.
This is a very serious situation for these people who have been in here for many, many years. There is an area which, potentially, could be of tremendous economic value. Not only are there the logging camps, the fishing camps, but there is also a considerable amount of mining farther up the west coast of Vancouver island.
Is it not possible to provide some form of assistance which would make it possible for some other company to operate the service if the Canadian Pacific has not a vessel now? I know the vessel they had was worn out and was not considered safe for the exposed passage, because you get the full sweep of the Pacific ocean up against those shores. You cannot put on any little lake steamer. There are these thriving communities all up the coast of Vancouver island, and I wonder what these people are going to do.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether my hon. friend understood me or if I did not make my position clear. This $100,000 subsidy was not turned down. I hope there is no misunderstanding as to that. If some other company will make an application for service, I am sure the maritime commission will be glad to give it consideration. Since the withdrawal of the particular ship and the contract which operated between the maritime commission and the Canadian Pacific there has been no further application. I can suggest this to my hon. friend. If the
Supply-Transport
Canadian Pacific will make application for another ship or some other company interested in the area would make application,
I am sure the commission would be glad to consider it.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you very much; the door is not closed to another company?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly not.


Mr. Matheson:: I want to ask a question concerning the Wood Island-Caribou service. Following the breakdown of negotiations between the company and the maritime commission, I understand that the commission was looking into the possibility of buying the Lady Alexandra on the west coast, so that additional service could be put into operation this year. I am wondering if that has been abandoned or whether that is still a possibility?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry that I cannot add to what I have already indicated, namely, that we have been in communication and negotiation with both the Northumberland Ferries Limited and the members of the Prince Edward Island government in connection with additional facilities and in connection with the operation of the new ship. Those negotiations are still continuing.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I take it that that would mean there is still some possibility of extra service being provided before the new boat is completed?


Lionel Chevrier: I hope so, but I am not in
a position to say so now because I do not know where the negotiations stand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board-*
505. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1954 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Halifax, $989,500; Saint John, $1,815,000; Quebec, $1,365,000; Churchill, $900,000; generally unforeseen and miscellaneous, $200,000; total, $5,269,500.
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement funds, $387,000; $4,882,500.
Howard Charles Green: This is the first item for the national harbours board, and I wish the minister would explain to the committee what course is followed by this board when it gives consideration to the necessity for new buildings in the harbours. For example, this spring we have had the position stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that because Vancouver harbour is unable to handle any more wheat the price of wheat at Fort William had to be cut lower than the price at Vancouver. Of course, this is a sore point

Supply-Transport
on the west coast, and we will deal with it under the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the national harbours board given any consideration to the need for further elevator accommodation at the port of Vancouver? Surely it is their responsibility to see that the facilities in these ports are adequate to meet conditions from time to time. However, we have a statement from one of the ministers, and a senior minister, with regard to the capacity of Vancouver harbour to handle wheat.
It appears to me that there should be steps taken to increase the capacity at the port. We do not want to get into a position where wheat that should go through the west coast is being diverted through Fort William and Port Arthur, simply because Vancouver does not have adequate accommodation. I should like to have the minister's comment on that situation. Then there is another point I want to raise in connection with Vancouver harbour.


Lionel Chevrier: With respect to the general policy of the board, the board has been giving consideration to the acute situation in the elevators under its jurisdiction for the past two years, and I would say quite actively during the last year. It has, because of the position it found in Montreal, Halifax, and Churchill, been able to recommend extensions there.
In Vancouver my hon. friend will remember the national harbours board were in a very embarrassing position at one time, and that not so long ago, when there were two leased elevators on which the leases expired and which the lessee did not see fit to renew. The national harbours board had to advertise, and it was some time before they could get someone to renew this lease. The position was so bad that they even had to advertise in the United States, with the result they succeeded in getting United States interests to take over both the elevators in question. I am informed by the board that there has been delivered and moved out of Vancouver more wheat this year than ever before. In fact I think the record will indicate there has been twice as much,


Howard Charles Green: No, the minister had better check that. The last word I had was that it did not even equal last year.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that compared with the corresponding period last year there has been twice as much wheat moved through the elevators at Vancouver; that is the information I have.
Now, with regard to the additional facilities, they are under constant review. If the

national harbours board, which is a government agency and not a departmental agency, wants to make recommendations for additional facilities and extensions, they will be considered in the same manner as extensions at other places.


Howard Charles Green: In the vote there is $989,500 for capital expenditures at Halifax, and an additional $550,000 in the supplementaries; $1,815,000 for Saint John and an additional $350,000 in the supplementary estimates; $1,365,000 for Quebec and $900,000 for Churchill as well as $200,000 for unforeseen expenditures. This situation is serious. The government itself said that the port is operating practically to capacity, so far as the shipment of wheat is concerned. I cannot understand why the national harbours board has not taken some steps to meet that situation. We are the port farthest removed from Ottawa and, incidentally, the port through which pass by far the greatest number of ships. There is no reason why the national harbours board should not be right up to the minute on this situation. It is not good enough to say that because two or three years ago they had to lease an elevator to an American company there is no need today for further elevator space.
I do not begrudge expenditures appearing in the estimates in connection with other ports. However I would ask the government whether it has under consideration the possibility of extending the facilities at the port of Vancouver for the handling of wheat.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies may I say that this is an important point, provided that there is in Vancouver a demand for additional facilities. If those who administer the port at Vancouver have made a request for additional facilities I would like to know why there is no item in the estimates to provide them with those facilities. If they have not made a request then I take it they must feel that the facilities at the port of Vancouver which, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said, is the busiest all-year-round port in Canada, are sufficient to provide for the traffic there.
I would not care to associate myself with a demand for further or greater expenditures of money at the port of Vancouver by the harbour commissioners there just because a considerable amount of money has been spent in other harbours across Canada. But if the harbour commissioners at Vancouver have indicated to the minister that there is a need for further facilities at that port to

take care of the traffic, then I would insist that Vancouver receive equal consideration with those other ports.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that I should like to confirm what I said earlier about the movement of wheat through Vancouver. Up to the end of May of this year it was 49,442,017 bushels as compared with 26,113,000 up to the end of May of last year.


Howard Charles Green: But the record for a year is over 100,000,000 bushels.


Lionel Chevrier: So that is about twice as much, up to now. Then dealing with facilities: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to have additional facilities there if they were not required. I thought the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway put it pretty clearly. The national harbours board think there are sufficient facilities for grain handling at Vancouver. As a matter of fact there are facilities to move 18,716,000 bushels of grain.


Howard Charles Green: Where?


Lionel Chevrier: At Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: In what period?


Lionel Chevrier: That is the capacity of the elevators, as compared with the 15 million bushels at Montreal. So the board feel that with the facilities now owned by private enterprise there is sufficient to meet the demand. If the time arrives when the facilities are not adequate we will build extensions to the present elevators.


Howard Charles Green: Then I understand the board is making no recommendation whatever for any increase in grain handling facilities at Vancouver; is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: There has been no recommendation made to me for that purpose.


Howard Charles Green: Has any consideration been given by the government to the setting up of advisory councils in any of these national harbours, for instance at Vancouver? I think there was a recommendation of that kind contained in the report of Sir Alexander Gibb back in the early thirties, when he investigated the situation in all the national ports in Canada. Here is a good example where there would be benefit from having some local council advising the national harbours board.
The present situation is that you have three commissioners sitting here in Ottawa, 2,500 miles away; and I do not believe there is any representative from the west coast on that
Supply-Transport
board. It would be far more beneficial to the port if there were some local committee able to advise. As I have said, Sir Alexander Gibb did make a recommendation along that line. I believe his suggestion was that there should be representatives of the city government, the shipping interests, labour unions and the like. Has any consideration been given by the government to a council of that kind at Vancouver?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is no, because that is one of the recommendations of Sir Alexander Gibb that the government did not accept. There were many it did accept, but that is one it did not see fit to implement. There are many reasons, which I have put on the record from time to time, as to why the government did not feel it was advisable.
I can say that in the port of Halifax they felt rather strongly about that recommendation at one time. They have abandoned their plea for it, and have adopted a port club known as the port of Halifax club. I am told that it is properly known as the port of Halifax commission. That commission is composed of a group of local people who are interested in the port and who communicate with the national harbours board from time to time. As the hon. member knows, the national harbours board is a body which visits each of the harbours from time to time and meets these commissions. It meets a similar group in the city of Quebec. If other groups in Vancouver feel they would like to do the same thing, I am sure the national harbours board would meet them. But it was found inadvisable to accept the recommendation of the Gibb report.


Howard Charles Green: I have one further question. Within the last few days a large quantity of crude oil has been pumped into Vancouver harbour through a mistake made by an employee of the Imperial Oil Limited, as a result of which 18 miles of the waterfront have been affected. A newspaper dispatch of June 11 states that-
-4,000 barrels of heavy oil spilled into the inlet from loco refinery May 28.
Now Imperial Oil is busy having it cleaned up. The dispatch continues:
Vancouver's biggest, most expensive spring cleaning job-removal of oil from Burrard inlet beaches -will cost thousands of dollars and will take weeks or months to complete.
What is the position of the national harbours board in a case of this kind? Have they had any report about this condition? This is the case of a company contaminating these beaches. Here is a case of a company contaminating those beaches and causing thousands of dollars worth of damage in

Supply-Transport
addition to all kinds of inconvenience. The national harbours board has ample power to deal with a situation of this kind. In fact the board members were not satisfied with the power they had before. They got a lot more this session, when they had the harbours board bill amended, as hon. members know. What steps, if any, is the national harbours board taking with regard to this action of the Imperial Oil?


Lionel Chevrier: The chairman of the national harbours board informs me that as soon as he had been advised of the pollution of the waters in Vancouver harbour by this oil he asked for a complete report. He has received only an interim report and is awaiting a final report. Since then, I am informed- I cannot verify this statement-the Imperial Oil has succeeded in doing away with a substantial portion of the oil.


Howard Charles Green: They have now turned off the tap that was turned on before.


Lionel Chevrier: However, the national harbours board are pretty seriously concerned about it because it affects their interests in the harbour, and until there is a complete report I am afraid it would be difficult for me to add anything.


Howard Charles Green: In a case of this kind do they Instigate prosecutions, or what steps do they take to see that this sort of thing does not happen again? Similar cases have happened before, but I do not remember anything quite as bad as this. There is no reason at all why actions like these should occur. The harbours board should have sufficient supervision of the harbour to see that it is prevented. Are they going to prosecute the company or is it just going to be a case of, oh, let the Imperial Oil clean up the beaches as best they can and the thousands of people affected can make the best of a bad job?


Lionel Chevrier: They have complete control, and there is provision under the act for action to be taken by the national harbours board, but I am sure the hon. member would not expect the board to move by way of action until they have the complete details.


Howard Charles Green: I do not expect them to move very fast, I admit that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for
Kamloops has reminded us that before the estimates are up next year the minister might have another assignment. If this should happen he will have the best wishes of all his colleagues in this house. Before this item carries I should like to express my per; sonal appreciation to the minister for the r sympathetic consideration he has given to the

port of Churchill and the needs of this northern route. Can he at this stage indicate when navigation is likely to open in Churchill, and whether any cargoes have been booked at this date for the shipment of grain through Churchill?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the navigation season will open on July 26 and extend to about October 10. It is expected there will be as many, if not more, ships this year than last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister control the
ice?


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the minister give us a break-down of the vote for the port of Halifax which is in the supplementary estimates, although we have not them before us? Can we have them both at the same time?


Lionel Chevrier: The main estimates are for the reconstruction of the lower apron of the ocean wall, berths 20, 21 and 22, $65,000; enlargement of the cold storage warehouse, $200,000; replacement of wooden gallery, in steel, $200,000; grain elevator extension, $450,000.


George Clyde Nowlan: I realize that the minister said the other day that at some time he or the Prime Minister hoped to be in a position to make a statement dealing with various things affecting his department, and I take it that one of the matters that prompted that statement might be the St. Lawrence seaway and the development which would flow from that. Without anticipating that statement, I should like to ask the minister whether he can comment on what would be the position of harbours which now come under municipal or local boards but which later on will be within the ambit of the St. Lawrence seaway development. There are those who assume that those harbours will be of as great importance as, for instance, Halifax or Vancouver, which now come under the national harbours board. Take as an instance the city of Toronto, which has a municipal board. There are other harbours along that seaway which have various types of boards. The minister has given a great deal of consideration to this whole matter. I wonder what the government policy is with respect to the administration of those various harbours when that takes place.


Lionel Chevrier: It is impossible to answer the question because the St. Lawrence seaway has not been started, and it will be some years before it is completed. All I can say is that there are three heads under which harbours are divided, namely, those under the national harbours board, those under

municipal operation, municipal commissions and smaller harbours that are operated by the Department of Transport. It is impossible to foresee what will happen in the future. Take for instance the city of Toronto. If it got to the stage where they wanted to become a national harbour, they would have to apply for inclusion under the act; but that is a harbour which is exceptionally well operated, and would have every advantage in remaining under the jurisdiction that it now is. That could go for a number of other harbours on the St. Lawrence, but I would hesitate to make a statement. It is a difficult question that my hon. friend asks me to expound. I do not think I can go any farther at this stage.


Mr. Bell:: Can the minister take a minute to tell us what is due for Saint John under their item? I should like also to hear whether the $1 million reduction from last year is in capital expenditure. I might take this opportunity also to say that while these were very fine pleas for the port of Vancouver and increased facilities for business, Saint John, and Halifax to a lesser degree, were the only two Canadian ports that had reductions in tonnage figures. While we have been given fair treatment by the harbours board, we must have every consideration in the matter of business and facilities.


Lionel Chevrier: The items for Saint John are the Pugsley terminal wharf extension, and sheds, $700,000; extension to berths 2 and 3, a little over $1 million. The items my hon. friend referred to have been reinstated in the supplementaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-*
Loans, investments and advances-
543. To provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying, and for future development of those airports, $1,000,000.
Howard Charles Green: This vote appears for the first time. Will the minister explain how the money is to be spent, and why money for the development of airports is included in this vote rather than in some of the earlier votes for civil aviation?


Lionel Chevrier: This is a new vote, as the hon. member has said. The object of this vote is to provide for future expansion of the major airports, but more particularly for the airports of Malton, Dorval and Vancouver. In the last several years we have found in the vicinity of the major airports the necessity of taking more land than is really required because of the zoning requirement in those areas and because of the expansion required.
Supply-Transport
The defence estimates were such in the last several years that it was impossible to get this vote, which we sought from time to time. Now, $1 million is just a beginning in that direction and it will take a great deal more to meet the needs of expansion around the major airports of Canada. However, we hope that in the next estimates there will be a greater amount than that.


Howard Charles Green: On what airports is this amount to be spent? What is the break-down?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no break-down. This is jusit a general amount for use when the time comes to expand but there has been no planned method in which the $1 million will be spent.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister no idea of how much will be spent at, say, Dorval, how much at Malton, and how much at Vancouver airport?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that is no, because it has not yet been possible to zone all these airports, and neither has it been possible to plan for future airport expansion. Take, for example, Vancouver. Until we have possession of that airport, despite the fact that we have been pressed on a number of occasions as to our future plans, it is not possible to do anything. But when we have possession we will proceed. At Dorval the same thing can be said so far as zoning regulations are concerned. We have zoned one airport but we have not got around to zoning the others.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board-
Loans, investments and advances-
544. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1954 on any or all of the following accounts: reconstruction and capital expenditures-Three Rivers, $380,000; Montreal, $3,558,200; Vancouver, $376,000, total, $4,314,200.
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement funds, $175,580; $4,138,620.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister explain this item?


Lionel Chevrier: At Three Rivers there is an expenditure of $380,000. For the transit sheds at Montreal there is an amount in the item covering sections 40, 41 and 42 of the wharf, amounting to $1,500,000, and the others are small items except for two car dumpers amounting to $820,000, while at Vancouver there is a rock well bulkhead, and dust control at No. 3 elevator at Granville amounting to $250,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Supply-Transport
Railway and steamship services-
Loans, investments and advances-
764. Loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, for the redemption of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, 25-year, 5 per cent, government guaranteed gold bonds, issued March 1, 1930, and maturing March 1, 1955, $3,600,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just one simple little question, Mr. Chairman. I notice there is reference here to government guaranteed gold bonds. What are gold bonds?


Lionel Chevrier: I think that is just a name. The Department of Finance is responsible for the manner in which this estimate is set up and I think it is just an attractive name given in order to encourage sales.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is not trying to put us back on the gold standard, is he?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Loans, investments and advances-
766.	Loan to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $683,561.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain why it is necessary for the government to grant this large sum to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Act provides for advances to the crown company from time to time for additions and betterments, and the sum of money provided here is for the expansion of the beam station in the Montreal area and the amount is $232,000. There are extensions at Vancouver stations, amounting to $269,000; at St. John's, Newfoundland, a new cable station amounting to $176,000; the Halifax station removal amounting to $29,860, and additions and betterments at a number of stations extending from Drummondville to Bamfield, B.C., which make up the entire vote. These are items provided for in the capital budget of the C.O.T.C. which was tabled in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board-
Loans, investments and advances-
767.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1954 on the following account: reconstruction and capital expenditures- Montreal-further amount required, $600,000.
Howard Charles Green: This item covers an additional $600,000 for the port of Montreal which makes a total of $4,158,200 for that port. Now, what is this additional $600,000 for?


Lionel Chevrier: This covers the construction of a shed at section 35 of one of the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
wharves to be used for coastal shipping. The Canadian shipping federation and the Montreal board of trade and chamber of commerce have made representations to the board over a period of years and it was felt that the time had arrived for the construction of these additional facilities and this is covered in this vote amounting to $600,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is the last item of the minister's estimates and I would like to join with other hon. members who have expressed their good wishes to the minister just in case he is not back with us next session. In case he might be back I had better not say too much about him or he might quote it back at us, but whatever happens we all wish him well.


Howard Charles Green: I would like to join with other hon. members in extending my best wishes to the minister, but if he does come back here next session we will try to give him as much trouble as we can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP THE SECRETARY OF STATE Public printing and stationery-
353. Departmental administration, $557,882.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Hon. members will find this item at page 50 and the details at page 426. Shall the item carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could the Secretary of State say when they expect to get into the new printing bureau?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not the Minister of Public Works but I have a certain amount of curiosity and I asked the minister about this. He told me he thinks we should start moving in some time in October. Personally I am keeping my fingers crossed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
355. Printing and binding the annual statutes, $40,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if there is any provision made here for the printing and binding of the Criminal Code of Canada which, we are told, is to go into force on January 1, 1955. What arrangements are being made for the circulation of this statute to magistrates, and particularly to the courts generally in Canada prior to the coming into force of the act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand in anticipation of the passing of this statute, which has not yet been given royal assent-I assume that it will be given in due course-the Department of Justice has been in touch with the queen's printer and he is very hopeful that, since the type is all set, except for certain small amendments which were made

recently, it should not take very many weeks to have copies available for distribution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a suggestion to make with regard to this particular item and I hope it will not result in increasing the estimate. I suggest that when the statute is printed and bound there be some reference in the marginal notes to the sections of the previous Criminal Code of which the new statutes are a consolidation. I just want to make that point because it seems to me it will be the major statute of this session and the one which will be of most interest to the people of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to bring that suggestion to the attention of the queen's printer and the Department of Justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item having to do with the printing of statutes there is one very small point-in fact, it is just the omission of one letter-that I want to call to the attention of the Secretary of State. In doing this, perhaps I should say that one of the things of which I am extremely proud is the excellent job of printing that is done by my fellow workers over at the printing bureau. In no case is the work better or more accurately done than it is in connection with the printing of the statutes. In this connection the degree of accuracy is really something to commend. I wanted to say that so that the one small error which I have come across will not be taken as a mark of criticism.
It so happened that when the Revised Statutes of 1952 came into our possession, I took the trouble to look up certain of the statutes in which I was particularly interested. For example, there are a few places in the statutes where amendments which I have introduced in the house have been accepted in some form in due course. I wanted to make sure that the commissioners who revised the statutes had not omitted any of those important amendments. One of the statutes in connection with which I had the privilege of playing some part by way of amendment was the amendment to the British North America Act-the second one- in the year 1949. I refer to the amendment which we asked for in this parliament and to which Westminster agreed, on the basis of which we now have the right to amend the British North America Act here in Canada in respect of matters exclusively federal. As some hon. members will recall, the resolution seeking that amendment was moved by the Prime Minister. I had the privilege of moving an amendment to the
Supply-Secretary of State Prime Minister's motion. The Minister of Justice moved a subamendment. In due course they all carried. However, on looking up the version of that amendment which appears at page 297 of volume VI of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, I find that a very small error has been made. When you get down quite a way in section 1 you find that it reads as follows:
-or as regards the requirements that there shall be a session of the parliament of Canada at least one each year, and-
That word "one" should be "once". I checked our own Hansard. I checked our own Votes and Proceedings. In those cases it is shown correctly. Also, just to make sure of the matter, I checked chapter 81 of the statutes of the United Kingdom for the year 1949 and I find that they have it correctly. It is correct in every other place except at page 297 of volume VI of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. Whenever there is a reprinting, I trust that small error will be corrected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These things do sometimes happen. I remember that in 1938 my attention was drawn to the reprinting of the British North America Act itself by the then king's printer. The section about the executive government being vested in the Queen's privy council had the word "council" left out of it, thus leaving a rather interesting result.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: That completes the items under public printing and stationery. While I am entirely in the hands of the committee, I perhaps will take the liberty of pointing out at this stage that the next item is item No. 1, departmental administration, Department of the Secretary of State. If the minister has an opening statement, I suggest that we might perhaps now call it six o'clock as he could speak for only about two minutes and then would be interrupted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I see that the item is No. 417.
I therefore agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that we should call it six o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes; it is item 417.
417. Departmental administration, $262,619.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to say just a word. I do not really think I have any opening statement to make. The Department of the Secretary of State is not a policy department. I thought I was simply here to answer questions about the department. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee with a statement.

Supply-Secretary of State


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have a certain number of questions to ask the Secretary of State who, we are quite certain, is enjoying his new experience. We should like to hear from him about his new experience. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you will call it six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hate to waste a minute.


Donald MacInnis: I have a few remarks I should like to make on this item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So have I.


Donald MacInnis: I shall not be long but I could not finish before six o'clock. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call it six o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the pleasure of the committee that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the hon. member for Kamloops, who ordinarily would speak first on these estimates, I should like to speak for a moment or two because unfortunately I have an appointment elsewhere which will take me out of the chamber in a very few moments. As this is the general item dealing with the administration of the Department of the Secretary of State, there is one matter that does not come directly within the estimates on which I should like to comment for a few moments. I refer to what in my opinion is the unfortunate situation now existing in so far as awards of recognition to Canadian civilian personnel are concerned. We have a situation in this country where those who have served the state-and I use "state" as a very general term-for many years, and whom one might think were entitled to some recognition, find that there is nothing in the gift of the government of Canada which can be given them by way of such recognition.
Some may remember that I raised this matter some time ago and gave the illustration of a lady who had worked on the piers in Halifax for a matter of some twenty or thirty years going back to the first war. She had served the soldiers going through the piers at that time with coffee, and continued on with immigrants during the twenties and thirties and into the forties. When she reached


certainly a rather advanced age the department suggested that she was too old to do this. She never received a cent of salary and they employed someone else to do the work. It was suggested that possibly some little award of recognition might be given her and I was told that no such thing was permitted. I do not think that is right.
We talk a great deal today, and properly so, of the development of the Canadian status. We take pride in the development of a Canadian nationalism. We hear talk about a Canadian flag and all these other things which go towards the national development of Canada. Yet we find that on a national basis we have no way by which we can give recognition to those who have served the state, using the word in a very general way. If one has achieved prominence in the academic world, the industrial world or the world of politics, universities will give recognition. We have sitting in this chamber those who have achieved awards of doctor's degrees, and they have been earned. Even in the churches there are titles which are conferred. I understand there is an order of knighthood in one of the great churches of this country.
There was a time when we did give awards, and I want to make it very plain that I am not now suggesting for a moment anything of a hereditary nature. We are not talking about peerages or anything of that kind. Any awards given will have to be won by the individual himself, must be worn by the individual and must die with the individual. I am not suggesting even an order of knighthood although personally-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or even a crystal ball.


George Clyde Nowlan: Or even a crystal ball, as my hon. friend says. I would not be averse to seeing the knighthood title "Sir" bestowed in certain cases. I remember that a former chief justice of Nova Scotia who died not long ago carried that title with dignity and respect and won the approbation not only of the bar but of the province as a whole. But I want to make it plain that I am not discussing anything of a hereditary nature or even the restoration of such orders, but I do say that I think the time has come when we should restore some of the orders that have been within the gift of the government before and which I find have now apparently been done away with.
I am quite sure the Secretary of State will say: Far be it from me to be vested with the responsibility of making recommendations in such a matter. I know it would not be easy to decide. Undoubtedly there would be newspapers which would say that these were political awards, that it was a terrible thing and that it should not be left to politicians

to make such recommendations. That may be a fair criticism but I would say that after all the antennae of politicians are fairly well tuned to the public current and public opinion, and I am quite sure that no recommendations would be made to the Secretary of State, whoever he might be, which did not meet with the approval of the people within the constituency concerned.
Personally, having played a little bit of politics for more years than I like to remember, the only thing I have ever got out of a federal government, Liberal or Conservative, is the satisfaction I got in the thirties of recommending a man who had given over forty years to the Boy Scout movement and who certainly made an impression on my life as he did on all the boys within that community. I suggested to a certain person that his name might be considered for the O.B.E. That recommendation was considered and ultimately he received the award. I know that it was one which certainly met with the approval not only of the people of the community but of the whole province.
It is something like that that I have in mind. As far as I know the great race to the south of us has no civilian awards whatsoever. I suppose that is part of their traditions. When they broke with the crown at the time of the American revolutionary war they resented any suggestion of preferment and apparently the tradition was established that no such awards would be given. But, without speaking at all critically, when one sees the number of Kentucky colonels, shall we say, created in that country from year to year and realizes that anyone who is elected to office, even that of justice of the peace, bears the title "honourable" for the rest of his life, I think he can say that even there there is a desire to have some recognition of some kind.
I have checked the situation in the commonwealth countries. We know of course that in Great Britain a multitude of titles and preferments can be created. I am not speaking now of the peerage or knighthood. There are some very select ones such as Companion of Honour, Order of Merit and others that are given to the individual, and there are also the orders of the British Empire, the C.B.E., O.B.E. and M.B.E. The same applies in Australia and New Zealand. In those countries they have a civilian list and a military list. In Canada we had a civilian list and a military list, and up until some time after 1935 civilian awards were made. Then they were discontinued.
During the last war many civilian awards of the British Empire were made on the
Supply-Secretary of State rather farfetched assumption, I think, that the people concerned were making some contribution to the war effort. I know some friends of mine received awards. They certainly deserved them, but if you are going to apply the yardstick of the war effort I would suggest that everyone who was not in jail or a saboteur was probably contributing something to the war effort. If you made awards on that basis you would have a fairly liberal list from which to choose.
This practice was discontinued shortly after the war, and when I took up the matter of this lady whom I mentioned earlier with the Secretary of State I found rather to my surprise that orders of the British Empire of the various ranks were reserved entirely for the military. I have no objection whatsoever to these awards being given to those in the armed services. I think it is perfectly fitting they should receive them.
But I do suggest this. If it is found desirable, and apparently it has been, to confer upon those in the employ of the state these various awards from time to time, then there is all the more reason why they should be conferred upon those who are not in the employ of the state. Certainly in Great Britain, and I believe in Australia and New Zealand, there is a civilian list. I am not sure of the seniority of the titles, but there is the O.B.E., the M.B.E. and C.B.E. I should like, sir, to see that civilian list restored in Canada, so that certain recognition could be given.
I am not overlooking the fact that we have the George Medal which is, I understand, an award given to civilians rendering acts of valour. For instance, if a farmer pulls someone out of a burning aeroplane or somebody rescues a person from drowning, then the George Medal is a fit and proper award and one which we recognize should be given. But it is given only for valour. I am not overlooking the fact that I have heard -I am sure the Secretary of State has much greater knowledge of this than I have-that there is such an order as the Canada Medal. I must say that is a rather forbidding and awesome sounding title, a rather metallic sound. It is reminiscent of the prize a farmer gets for exhibiting a bull at a fair. I believe we could have chosen a better title.
Nevertheless, I understand that at one time, and the Secretary of State is probably conversant with this in another role, we did establish something called the Canada Medal. I have heard from someone who was supposed to be well informed that there was a time when the government of Canada was confronted with a list of those to whom the Canada Medal might have been awarded. The

Supply-Secretary of State ones responsible for the government of Canada said, "enough". The list was never considered and no promulgations were ever made. Even if the lists for the Canada Medal were promulgated, I believe it would serve the purpose I have in mind.
I do not intend to take the time of the committee in making further mention of this matter. I speak of it because we have a new Secretary of State and one whom I know, because of his background, is conversant with the problem of this government in connection with the matters to which I am referring. I believe he, too, might feel that something of this nature could be done. I am urging that the time has come when action should be taken. We had it, then dropped it for various reasons and I am not going into those. There might have been a personal predeliction on one person's part, but I do say the time has come when we should re-establish those things.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps in view of the fact the hon. member will have to leave us for another engagement I might say just a word, not about the principle of what he said because it is not for me to discuss that at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not the adviser of the crown in matters of this kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are the gentleman in charge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister has heard the hon. gentleman's remarks, and no doubt has taken note of them. There are a couple of things the hon. member said in the course of his remarks to which I thought I should refer so there will not be any misunderstanding.
The hon. gentleman, I know, did not have the slightest intention of misrepresenting the actual situation, but the actual situation is that these awards in the orders of chivalry- not those that carry a title, but those that do not-are not made to the armed forces generally but are made only to people who have served in an actual theatre of hostilities. There have been no such awards made since the period right after the end of the war for service in an actual war theatre, except for service in Korea. I believe the house and the country ought to understand that because I do not believe that it would be defensible at all to suggest that soldiers or airmen or sailors who served in Canada only should receive this distinction when civilians do not. Whatever may be thought about the wisdom


of that distinction, that is the distinction that is made and not the one the hon. member suggested.
In so far as the Canada Medal is concerned, I understand, in fact I recollect rather distinctly that the approval of the sovereign was given to the institution of a Canada medal. I presume it may be said to exist en principe but in fact none of them has ever been awarded. It has never been my responsibility to consider this matter. It is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to consider it.


Donald MacInnis: I am going to say a few words about an altogether different matter, but perhaps I should say in passing that I hope we will not go any farther in the giving of titles or awards than we have gone already. Personally, I do not believe that they add to the distinction of the individual who receives them. Very few people know that you have the title, anyway, and that takes away some of the value of receiving it. I have no doubt that it would sound well, for instance if the Prime Minister were called Sir Louis St. Laurent. I think, however, the title he has now is one he would like much better and is probably one that becomes him even better, and that is "Uncle Louis".


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Queen did not confer that one.


Donald MacInnis: The people conferred it, and with all due regard to the Queen it is possibly a higher distinction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By some people, but not all.


Donald MacInnis: Well, the rest did not demur, and I want to be included amongst the rest who did not.
What I am going to speak about, Mr. Chairman, is what I consider a great miscarriage of justice. I refer to the properties which were confiscated-I use that term but perhaps it is not the correct one-from persons of Japanese origin who were removed from the Pacific coast. I discuss it now for several reasons. I wrote several letters to the predecessor of the present Secretary of State without receiving much satisfaction in the matter. Earlier this session, with one of the property owners concerned and his legal representative, I had a talk about the matter with the minister. The proposals for a review of the case were turned down by the Secretary of State. He informed me to that effect, and I told him I did not agree. He was good enough to say that I could speak about it when the estimates of his

department were before the house; that is one reason why I am taking this opportunity.
I am speaking about it for another reason. I am not a university man, but I was at a special convocation of the University of British Columbia about two years ago, and amongst those present was the Prime Minister who received an honorary degree. The gentleman who made the address at that convocation was Sir John Morris. I think he is a judge of the appeal court in the United Kingdom. There were two sentences in his address which I noted at the time, and which have stuck with me since. He said:
Surely there are few more satisfying experiences than to help set right an injustice. Injustice should be righted' wherever, whenever and however it appears.
There are few people in Canada who would deny that there was an injustice done to these people. Not only was there the injustice of uprooting them from their homes and sending them all over the dominion but there was the injustice of a studied attempt to despoil them of their property.
As I said, no matter how long it is since that happened, I agree with Sir John Morris that injustice should be righted wherever, whenever and however it appears. And there is still another reason why I refer to this. When the event of the removal of these people from the Pacific coast took place we were at war with Japan. There is no denying that Japan was a treacherous and ruthless enemy, and that our people who were unfortunate enough to be taken prisoner or to be caught by the Japanese suffered keenly.
However we have made our peace with Japan. We have signed a peace treaty with her. We have made a soft peace with Japan. And I think that having made a soft peace with Japan we should be big enough and generous enough to make a soft peace with those of Japanese origin in this country, who committed no crime, who committed no treachery, and whose only fault was that they happened at a particular time to be in a particular place, and were of a particular racial origin.
That is my reason for taking up the time of the committee in referring to this matter tonight. The case I am going to refer to was probably the largest property involved in the evacuation. I am not taking up this case because it was the largest; there were hundreds of small properties where the lifework of whole families was lost. That is true of the individual about whom I now speak. He was a naturalized Canadian citizen, naturalized as long ago as 1909. The properties concerned were, among other things, two
Supply-Secretary of State fairly extensive timber limits on Vancouver island. Like the other evacuees, he was given 48 hours notice to leave his property, to get ready and to be transported to some other place in Canada, in this instance the city of Toronto, where he finally landed.
He was not allowed to go back, of course, to look after his property. Yet he was held responsible for everything in connection with it. He was fined because he had not burned the slash, that is the debris left after felling of timber. He had to pay taxes on the property while it was going to ruin, with nobody looking after it. And in that case he was no different from the others.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where was this?


Donald MacInnis: On Vancouver island. The firm was known as the Deep Bay Logging Company, and the chief shareholder and manager of the property was a person named Ekichi Kagetsu. One piece of property was known as block 195 in the Cowichan lake district on Vancouver island, which he claimed had a market value of $247,500. May I say that Mr. Justice Bird was appointed commissioner to set a value on these properties, and to adjudicate upon their value in 1948, six years after the people were removed. This man was then allowed to go back and prepare the records for his property, but he was given only a very short time to do this and most of the records had been lost. While the value he placed upon it was $247,500 it was sold by the custodian for the sum of $93,000.
The other property was another piece of timberland including 11 blocks of land with a certain amount of felled and cold decked timber, and a stand of immature timber, with some mature timber as well. Mr. Kagetsu put a value upon it of $292,039, and the custodian sold it for $40,000.
I mention this because I am going to show later on the value that was put on some other assets, and it will give hon. members an idea whether a proper price was received by the owners for this property in the sale. It was sold by tender in 1943, I believe, and the attempt at final price settlement was not made until 1948.
Mr. Justice Bird in setting the value took into consideration the amount of timber that was supposed to be on the land; but it is interesting to note that 70 per cent more timber has been cut on the Cowichan lake property, block 195, than the commissioner said was there in the first place. And they were still cutting a couple of years ago.
6096	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State
In the other case 100 per cent more timber was taken off the property than the commissioner said was on it, and they were still cutting on that property in 1951. And then again there was the immature timber which, if left in this man's possession, would have increased in value as the years went by. There were buildings on the property used as bunkhouses for the men working in the lumber camp. The buildings consisted of 20 family residences, 10 bunkhouses, a community hall, a new office and eight other buildings. These were camps. They were insured for $10,000. The commissioner put a value of $1,000 on these buildings. He said the reason that he put that value on them was that the buildings-bunkhouses for the lumber workers to sleep in, and the Kagetsu employees were persons of Japanese origin. The commissioner said that they would not be of any value to an occidental buying the property because the bunks would not be long enough for occidental loggers. It seems to me that that is an amazing way of putting a value on property that you are expropriating or that you are confiscating. Perhaps "confiscating" is not the correct word. It should be the value of the property to the owner, not what it would bring at a forced sale; it should be the value to the man who owned it and controlled it.
Then again there were some railways on the timber limit. There were 8J miles of logging railway, if I remember correctly. Anyone who knows anything about building railways in British Columbia, through the terrain there, knows that it costs money. Not all of this line had rails laid on it, but what did not have rails laid on it had been graded so that a truck could drive over it. For this railway the commissioner allowed the sum of $1,000. If I remember correctly, the reason he gave for that was that the person who was buying the railway would not be using it. That again is an unusual way to put a value on something you are taking from someone and selling at a forced sale. Surely the criterion is the value to the man who owned it, the value it was really to him if he were allowed to use it in his own way for making a living.
No allowance was made for the forcible removal from the property. If that was done to any member of this house what would he think? What would you think of that as justice? You may say it was all done legally; that orders in council were passed and so on. Surely, meeting legal requirements is not meeting the ends of justice. I have before me a statement made by a very well known


gentleman in this country who spoke to the Quebec bar association on January 5, 1953. He said this:
Thus when you are studying present administration of justice or new methods of procedure you are helping your country to preserve, not only justice, but all the fundamental liberties that we have fought for, won and defend as essential to our way of life.
I suppose every hon. member would agree with that. Who said it? No less a person than the Prime Minister of Canada. It is said that the Minister of Justice was at the same meeting and also the solicitor general of the province of Quebec. I agree with the words of the Prime Minister. If what he said is true, then it is high time we reviewed the action we took in providing compensation for the property of people who were forcibly removed from the province of British Columbia and, let me say again, people who had committed no crime and who were never accused of any crime. 1 agree that it is a long time ago, but if we are going to take the words of Sir John Morris that I read before:
Surely there are few more satisfying experiences than to help set right an injustice. Injustice should be righted wherever, whenever and however it appears-*
-here is an injustice that, in my opinion, should be righted. In one of the letters I had from the former secretary of state he said that this property, the Kagetsu property, had not been profitable in the years prior to the evacuation; that is, in 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942. That was true of a great many properties at that time. But lumbering was a very lucrative business in British Columbia from 1942 at least until quite recently. But again I say that that should not be considered in making a just award for this property. I have before me the report of an arbitration award in the matter of the Beauharnois shareholders in respect of property taken over by the government of the province of Quebec. This statement appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 21, 1953. The arbitrators had this to say:
We think it is pertinent also to refer to the fact that the Beauharnois undertaking was in 1944 emerging from its lean year-
Let us say that the Kagetsu business in 1942 was emerging from the lean years. I continue:
-a process experienced by nearly every industrial undertaking. It takes time to build up a well-trained operating staff, to iron out operational problems and difficulties.
It is only after such things are done that the profits begin to come in and, as I said before, the same principle would apply in

regard to the Kagetsu property. I would urge the Secretary of State, in taking over his new office, to think of the high regard in which the matter of dispensing justice is held in this country. I hope that we do not only give lip service to justice when making speeches before bar associations or at university convocations, but that it is something we believe in every day of the week.
The minister is a new man, new in his office and new in the government, but there are people in Canada and I am sure people in the present government who I am quite satisfied agree that perhaps next to the expulsion of the Acadians this is the darkest stain on the escutcheon of Canada. I say this committee should give its approval to having someone review this entire matter. The review which was made by the commissioner who made the award in the first place is an altogether amazing way to appeal a case. I would like very much to have this case referred to the exchequer court, where such cases should be referred, and have this matter reviewed by the present president of that court. I would be most interested in what he would have to say.


Mr. Philpott:: Is the hon. member suggesting that the procedure in this one particular case where the amount covered is $93,000 should be subjected to review, or does he mean all cases?


Donald MacInnis: I would suggest that in all these cases where there has been an injustice there should be a review. I mention this case because I was consulted in connection with it, and first approached by a solicitor in Vancouver, then by Mr. Kagetsu, and I said-


Elmore Philpott: Did this man appeal his case to the court of appeal or a royal commission?


Donald MacInnis: There was only one appeal in this case as far as I understand, though the Secretary of State may correct me if I am wrong. It was reviewed by the commissioner who set the value on the property in the first place, Mr. Justice Bird of the appeal court of British Columbia, and an appeal was later made to him for revision. He heard the case and made a small adjustment amounting to some $2,000 odd. But in my opinion the appeal should have been sent to some justice outside the province of British Columbia, and the proper court to which appeals should be referred is, in my opinion, the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want
wholeheartedly to support the plea addressed to the Secretary of State by the hon. member
Supply-Secretary of State for Vancouver-Kingsway. I thought he dealt very well with the principles involved and supported them with facts. I had quite a lot to do with these Japanese-Canadians because during the war possibly a majority of them were in various villages and camps in my own constituency. As a matter of fact, on one occasion Mr. Austin Taylor, chairman of the commission, asked me to visit various mining camps with an assistant commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to see in what way they could utilize old hotels, disused houses and so on. In this regard I shall never forget a trick that gentleman taught me when it comes to stopping at hotels in mining communities. He said to me: "From my lifelong experience as a member of the R.C.M.P., I would advise you, Herridge, always to sleep in your underwear to avoid catching cold when you stop at a hotel in a small mining community."
These people lived in my constituency during the war in quite large numbers and I had an opportunity of meeting many of them. The longer they stayed in the district the more their good qualities were recognized and many of these people told me of their losses on account of evacuation in the way of homes, furniture, farms, equipment, boats and so on.
I am quite confident that a considerable number of people have been treated unjustly according to Canadian standards and some of the cases are almost tragic and heartbreaking. Many of these people spent the whole of their lives building up small estates which they had to leave and which were disposed of at fire sale prices. I am going to quote briefly from a brief I have here composed by the evacuation losses compensation committee in order to support the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. This brief has this to say:
For example, one claimant who owned timber limits can at this date prove that twice the volume of timber existed than was allowed by the commissioner. Unshakable B.C. government scale records of timber actually removed from his limits from the date of sale to the present, is weighty new evidence, not available in 1948 to the commissioner. The logging of these limits still continues. The under secretary of state has rejected this new evidence on the patently irrelevant grounds that the claimant's management was inefficient, which contention conflicts with the commissioner's findings. Factors such as closer utilization fail entirely to reconcile the wide disparity. But a review has been denied. $1.50 an acre for vast lands, $1,000 for 41 housing units are further examples of erroneous valuation by the commissioner.
I strongly support the plea made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that this whole question be reviewed by a competent court with a view to giving these Canadian citizens the justice to which they are entitled.
6098	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who is an old friend of mine, for his courtesy in letting me know well in advance that he was going to bring up this matter. It is true that I received Mr. Kagetsu when the hon. member was present and I think I should tell the committee as nearly as I can recollect it what happened at that time.
The position I took was that I was not appointed to my present office to act as a court of appeal from decisions made by my predecessors or by Mr. Justice Bird, and that I would not attempt myself to assess the merits of a case which, I am only too ready to recognize, I am not competent to assess. I said, moreover, that I was not willing to go to my colleagues and ask them if they would permit a review of this one individual case, for I said I would not be a party to such an injustice; merely because Mr. Kagetsu was one of the largest claimants, and merely because he had greater facilities for bringing his claims repeatedly to the attention of the government, I said I would certainly not ask for a review of his case in isolation; all I would do was to go to my colleagues and ask them if they were prepared to have all the cases reviewed, because it seemed to me that the smallest claim had just as much right to justice as the largest one.
I told Mr. Kagetsu, in the hon. member's presence, and I am sure he will confirm this, that I did not think my colleagues would agree to such a review, but I said I would ask for it though I told them quite frankly why I did not think it would be granted.
I said that the most competent person the government of the day felt it could select had been selected from the bench of the province of British Columbia to make a review of all these cases. That person had made an adjudication which I was sure was as objective and as dispassionate as any judge could make.
Whether he made mistakes or whether he did not make mistakes, I do not know. Of course all of us are human and all of us occasionally make mistakes. I do not yield to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in my passion for justice. But the only way in which justice can be rendered is by human beings who are liable to err. Judge Bird may have made some mistakes but he made as judicial and as dispassionate a consideration of these claims as I think anyone would be apt to make. I am not at all convinced- and neither were my colleagues-that to have them reviewed by another judge or by two or three judges would eliminate any,
[Mr. Herridge.J

if there were any, or all, if there were a number, of the errors that Judge Bird may or may not have made. It seemed to me that it was just a question of whether the government had reasonable confidence that Judge Bird had done as good a job as could reasonably be expected to be done in all the circumstances. My colleagues had come to the conclusion, before I became a member of the government, that that was so and they were not prepared to change that view. I must say that in the light of all the circumstances I concur in that view.


Donald MacInnis: May I ask the Secretary of State one question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Donald MacInnis: Why did the government not apply to these cases the same methods that were applied, for instance, in expropriating one of the Booth properties in Ottawa or the Edwards property or the Perley property? Why did they not apply the same principle, put a value on the property and then if the person concerned was not satisfied with the value he could appeal to the exchequer court? Why was this sort of policy adopted: Here it has to go before the commissioner; you take it or you leave it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a question I would not attempt to answer.


Donald MacInnis: There is no answer to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am no more capable of interpreting the minds of other people than is my hon. friend. I was not a member of the government when this decision was made. It was made by a government of which I was not a member and it is impossible for me to say why the government did one thing rather than another. It did a thing which I know was intended to be fair, which I believe was substantially fair, and which the government is not prepared now, at this late date, to change.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The discussion of the estimates of the Secretary of State has got off on this subject of the awards made to the Japanese who were dispossessed of their property by order in council passed during the war, under which a judge of the appeal court of British Columbia was appointed to adjudicate as a commissioner. I think probably no more interesting and no more appropriate subject could have been chosen for the institution of the discussion of the estimates of the new Secretary of State of Canada.
At the outset I want to say that I feel that the action taken by the government of Canada with respect to the suspected disloyal activities of the Japanese on the Pacific coast was,

by and large, a proper and a fair action to take. As I understand it-I was not here at the time-it had the support of the majority of the citizens on the coast at that time. Therefore in so far as the Japanese being removed from their properties on the coast and sent to other areas of the country where they could not do any damage to the war effort is concerned, I have no criticism to offer of the government of the day.
But having said that I think it is essential that we should realize that now that the war is finished, now that we are in conflict with another ideology, namely that of communist Russia, we should be, so far as it is possible, above and beyond reproach. That is a difficult thing, but in so far as we can do it I think we should say to ourselves that where these men were dispossessed of valuable property to which they were at that time lawfully entitled we as a Christian and democratic state will restore them to the position in which they would have been had this unfortunate measure not been necessary. I doubt very much if there are many in this house or in the country who would disagree with me in that general statement of objectives. It therefore becomes necessary to review the measures taken to deal with this whole problem.
Tied up with this thing I think is the question of the claims of our own people for maltreatment suffered in the course of the war in the Far East. As it happens, this is also a matter under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Here I find that Canadian citizens were subjected to the most unsatisfactory conditions of delay and hardship in respect of the recognition of their claims for war damage on that account. Our complaint against this government is twofold. First, our complaint is that the Japanese who are now Canadian citizens have not been given proper recognition of their just claims for their dispossession. In the second place-and I am even more concerned on this account-Canadian citizens who suffered damage and hardship, loss of physical health-in many cases men or women have claims on account of the death of their husbands or wives, on account of the death of the other party-as the result of Japanese internment in the Far East have not had their claims treated in accordance with their just deserts. On both these counts the Department of the Secretary of State stands indicted.
I have had some considerable lengthy correspondence with the predecessor of the Secretary of State and with the war claims commission operating under the aegis of his department and I have this to say. So far as I am aware, not one single case that I have
Supply-Secretary of State taken up with the war claims commission has yet been settled. Although the war against the Japanese has been over now for nine years, not one single case of a claim for internment, death, loss of property or whatever may be the ground, has yet been settled. Although I fully support the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in his contention that the Japanese who were dispossessed have not had full justice done to them with respect to the value of their property-I say that in all solemnity; I fully support him in what he has said-I think it is even more reprehensible that Canadians or the wives and widows of Canadians have not had full justice done to them under our war claims commission on the claims that they have with respect to death or internment or loss of property as a result of the war in the Far East.
Having said that, may I say that I hope the Secretary of State will not only take the matter under consideration-I hope he will do that-but will insist on some action. I know he is an energetic, young and vigorous man. Perhaps in that respect he is a little bit different from his predecessor who found it rather hard to stay awake in the House of Commons here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Sinclair:: Your talking would make anybody go to sleep.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It sometimes is rather difficult to stay awake-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the Minister of Fisheries some comment to make?


James Sinclair: Yes, I have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then will the minister get to his feet and make it?


James Sinclair: Yes, I will. I would say that the hon. member for Kamloops would make anybody in this house go to sleep except himself, because he loves to hear himself speak.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Chairman, the voice of anyone but the Minister of Fisheries would bore the Minister of Fisheries, as we all know from experience in this chamber. But I would say this to the Minister of Fisheries. If he can show me a single case before the war claims commission that has yet been satisfactorily dealt with, I shall be glad to hear it.


Mr. McCann:: Thousands of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tell me one claim?


James Joseph McCann: Thousands of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do not make those broad general statements. Tell me one claim.
6100	HOUSE OF
Supply

Secretary of State


James Joseph McCann: We cannot both talk at once.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We now have the Minister of National Revenue on his feet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least you have everybody awake.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the first time we have had the Minister of National Revenue on his feet.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
gentleman asked me a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The chairman is standing.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think perhaps
now that the honours are about even-


James Sinclair: The honour is not even, when the hon. member for Kamloops attacks an absent member, not the absent member for Dufferin-Simcoe but one who has now left the House of Commons.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The committee will be quite satisfied if we return to the estimates of the Secretary of State. I would point out, as it is my duty to point out, that the hon. member for Kamloops has the floor at the moment and can be interrupted only with his consent or on a point of order or question of privilege. I think perhaps the committee as a whole will find that we will get along more satisfactorily if one member addresses the chair at a time.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I have interrupted the
somnolence of hon. gentlemen opposite I apologize.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not think we will get any further by endeavouring to-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will sit down as soon as he sits down.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not think we will really get any further by having too many members on either side of the house assisting the chairman in his efforts to keep order. If the Minister of Fisheries has a question of privilege I will hear it.


James Sinclair: My question of privilege is an unusual one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They usually are.


James Sinclair: It is unusual because the
chairman ordinarily does not intervene in a question between members that arises only
[Mr. Fulton.l

because the hon. member has attacked one who is no longer here, as the hon. member for Kamloops attacked the former secretary of state. I at least attack the hon. member here in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course the hon. gentleman forgets that the former secretary of state is in the Senate and can reply. The hon. gentleman is not always distinguished by-


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. gentleman resume his seat until I have finished? The hon. gentleman has not always been distinguished by attacking members who are present in their places in the House of Commons.


James Sinclair: Name one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to have aroused the ire of the Minister of Fisheries whose usual custom it is to go around the country attacking people who are not able-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


James Sinclair: Name one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the hon. member-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -to answer in the House of Commons. I will be glad to answer him any time he cares to make an attack on me.


An hon. Member:: This is a waste of time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, because the attack is hardly worth answering. I quite agree.


James Sinclair: That means you cannot name one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not quite understand what the hon. member means.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are we discussing?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As far as I can make out, Mr. Chairman-


James Joseph McCann: You are not making out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the Minister of Fisheries is asserting his claim to be prime minister rather in advance because he is now seeking to take under his aegis all departments of government and to answer all attacks that may be made upon the government.


James Sinclair: How silly can you get?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course when answering the attacks of the Minister of Fisheries one has to descend to his level.


James Sinclair: That would be very easy for you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: However, I will leave it at that and return to the Secretary of State.


James Joseph McCann: You will do better if you do.


James Sinclair: An easier target.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am usually a most moderate man. I do not like entering into these bear gardens, and if the Secretary of State wishes to rise on a question of privilege to reply to the gratuitous attack made upon him by his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, I shall be glad to give him the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Secretary of State has no desire to descend to the level of the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course the level-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: of discussion to which the hon. member for Kamloops descended was that suggested by the Minister of Fisheries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Kamloops is very suggestible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let us leave that there. I was suggesting that the Secretary of State, who incidentally is quite capable on his own account of setting his own level of discussion -and I shall have occasion to refer to that in a moment or two-might find it desirable to answer the criticisms with respect to the settlements made as to these dispossessed Japanese properties. I noticed that the Secretary of State, in his reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, suggested that merely because he is now in front of the curtain instead of behind it he disclaims responsibility for anything that was decided, discussed or settled by his predecessor in office. That is of course a principle which is quite inconsistent with the principles and precedents established by other governments, governments of which the minister himself is now a member.


James Sinclair: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am always glad to permit a question by the Minister of Fisheries.


James Sinclair: If that is the policy why does the present Conservative party dissociate itself from everything done by the Conservative party under R. B. Bennett?


An hon. Member:: That is a smart question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question, Mr. Chairman, carries with it its own answer. We do not dissociate ourselves from what was done before but the fact is that the government-


James Sinclair: Fifteen years.
Supply-Secretary of State


Edmund Davie Fulton: -of which the Minister of Fisheries is a member appealed all that was done by R. B. Bennett to the Supreme Court of Canada and had it declared unconstitutional. We are not dissociating ourselves from what was done, but the hon. gentleman's party and the government of which he is a member-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -must assume responsibility for appealing all these measures to the Supreme Court of Canada and having them declared unconstitutional.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order.


James Sinclair: I wonder-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Kamloops-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Wait a moment.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not until the Secretary of State sits down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am raising a point of
order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The chairman is on his feet.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will both hon. gentlemen sit down? It is, I think, well known to all members of the house that when a member states that he is rising on a question of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said a point of order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -he must be heard. It will be my responsibility to decide whether or not it is a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think you heard me aright. I was rising on a point of order. I have no question of privilege. My point of order is that the estimates of the Secretary of State are now, as I understand it, before the committee, and that interesting as the dissertation by the hon. member for Kamloops on constitutional history may be at some other time-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who brought it up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I think most members of the committee would like to get on with the estimates.


Mr. Rowe:: That is no point of order. That is just your wish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the chairman decide.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tell your own colleague to shut up.

Supply-Secretary of State


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not think there is any question in the minds of hon. members that the point of order raised by the Secretary of State is well taken. I am going to ask the hon. member for Kamloops to come back to the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, and I am also going to ask all other hon. members, if they feel impelled to interject or to raise a question during the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, to also confine themselves to the estimates of the Secretary of State.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No one could be more in accord with the ruling you have made, Mr. Chairman, than I am myself. Your Honour will recall and the members of the committee will recall that I had commenced by discussing the dispossession of certain Japanese of Canadian origin of their property, and had gone on from there to discuss the matter of the Canadian war claims commission, which is under the Secretary of State. At that point I was interrupted by the Minister of Fisheries, and having dealt with his interruptions in the manner in which the interruptions deserve, I shall return to the estimates of the Secretary of State.
Having pointed out to the house that the Secretary of State now that he is in front of the curtain disclaims responsibility for those things which were done when he was behind the curtain-


James Sinclair: Above the curtain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right-the Minister of Fisheries is quite right. He agrees that the Secretary of State was responsible when he was above the curtain for what was done by the government below the curtain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister rising now on a point of order or a question of privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising now on what I think is a proper question of privilege, and one with which I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops will be in complete agreement. I am quite prepared, and I was prepared when I entered this government, to accept responsibility for what this government has done. I accept fully my share of the responsibility for maintaining the position that the government has taken about this matter of Mr. Justice Bird's awards. But what I said was that I could not claim to have knowledge of what was in the minds of the people who made that decision. I did not say I was disclaiming responsibility. I am not disclaiming responsibility.


William Earl Rowe: That is not a point of order, that is a point of responsibility.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not mind the Secretary of State giving the answers to my points on points of order if he prefers doing it that way rather than by replying in due course. The fact is that the Secretary of State has so far refused to review, now he is in front of the curtain, what was done when he was behind the curtain. I have no quarrel with that. I merely state it as a matter of fact. I do believe it is a position that denies the position taken by most democratic governments, and certainly it is a denial of the position taken by the government of which the hon. gentleman is now privileged to be a member. This government has never hesitated, under the well-known constitutional precedent, to accept responsibility for the decisions which were made by its predecessor, whether or not there happened to have been in the meantime a change of government. Every government which has come into office in Canada or Great Britain, every democratic government under our responsible system, has admitted responsibility for and has attempted to discharge the responsibility for the decisions and commitments entered into by its predecessors.
Therefore I do not think it is good enough for the Secretary of State to say that he does not know what may have been done or the motive that may have influenced his predecessor in office, and to state that he claims no responsibility therefor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I accept responsibility.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what the minister said before. He did not know what had been the motives of his predecessor, and therefore he did not care to discuss the decision made by his predecessor. The fact is, he is now Secretary of State of Canada. He has assumed responsibility and he has to answer to the House of Commons, to the Canadian people and to the citizens of Japanese origin who may have had injustice done to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite prepared to do it, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We shall be very glad indeed to hear what the Secretary of State has to say about that. We shall be glad also to hear what the Secretary of State has to say with respect to the claims of Canadians of Anglo-Saxon and other origins who have been citizens of this country for long periods and who have received inadequate treatment by the commission for which he is responsible, namely, the war claims commission. In many cases, to my knowledge, these claims have not yet been finally adjudicated.

I say these things, Mr. Chairman, with some heat apparently. I think the heat was engendered by the interruptions of the Minister of Fisheries, who has now retreated from the house. The Minister of Fisheries has retreated to the position which the Secretary of State used to occupy. The Minister of Fisheries has gone behind the curtains, whereas the Secretary of State is now out in front of the curtains. I have never hesitated in my course-Dracula arises, Mr. Chairman! He seats himself again. Does the Minister of Fisheries wish to say something?


James Sinclair: I have withdrawn from the front benches so that I would not hear the hon. member quite as loudly as I do on the front benches.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had not observed that the minister had yet been promoted to the front benches, but if the minister wishes to promote himself to the front bench, let him have his day of glory.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was dealing with the Secretary of State, and I wanted to get back to a basis of good fellowship and camaraderie which was established recently during the Easter recess by the Secretary of State himself.
I am a faithful subscriber, Mr. Chairman, to a newspaper which is distinguished by the title the Kamloops Sentinel. During the Easter recess the Secretary of State was out in my city and he gave an interview, apparently, to the press which was reported in the issue of April 23. It is a very interesting report indeed, and I should like to read it to the house. My friends to my left will be interested in this. The heading is "State Secretary Pickersgill claims Social Credit Impact Upon Ottawa 'Absolutely Nil'." The article reads:
The chubby, brilliant and somewhat aloof civil servant-turned-politician who many believe may be the next prime minister of Canada was in Kamloops today visiting relatives.
I can only suggest that those relatives, those who were the beneficiaries of his visit to Kamloops, maintain no delusions on that score.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, the dominion's forty-eight year old Secretary of State-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He does not look it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We come to this later.
-was to pull out of the city tonight heading for Ottawa after a combined holiday and speaking tour that began at Victoria a day or so before Easter.
The rather boyish-looking and rotund Secretary of State talked of many things ... of shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings.
I am reading from the article, Mr. Chairman.
Supply-Secretary of State


James Sinclair: That will get you nowhere.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The article continues:
He has an easy and informal manner, although with his proven record of scholarship, he leaves an impression that while he is speaking his mind is soaring away above such mundane matters as politics.
I may point out to the committee that this was written after the minister had come out in front of the curtain. The article continues under the heading "trade mark".
Conservatively dressed-
Well, of course, I should pause here to remark that the hon. gentleman has conservative antecedents.
... in a dark grey suit and with the habit of toying with his eyeglasses, Mr. Pickersgill must be a cartoonist's delight.
Of course, that reminds us of the cartoons during the last federal election in which the hon. gentleman was portrayed as claiming the origin and beneficence of having introduced the family allowance program.


James Sinclair: The Tory party always
objected to family allowances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was a parentage which was strongly disputed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


James Sinclair: The Tory party obstructed the marriage. Family allowances were a political pariah, according to the Tories. They had no share in it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Tory party has-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I am more sorry than the rest of the committee that it becomes necessary for the chairman to interrupt so often this evening, during the discussion of this particular item. I rise at this time because I feel impelled to draw two matters to the attention of the committee. The first is that matters such as the responsibility for family allowances are not before the committee at the moment. The other matter causes me more difficulty. The estimates of the Secretary of State are before the committee at the moment. And the manner in which the Secretary of State and his officials conduct his department are also before the committee at the moment.


James Sinclair: Excellent!
The Depuiy Chairman: But there is a long citation in Beauchesne which states, in part:
The rule relating to personal reflections occurring in debate, may be stated thus, namely: That it is doubly disorderly for any member, in speaking, to digress from the question before the house and to attack any other member-
And so on.	,

Supply-Secretary of State
I would suggest to the hon. member who has the floor at the moment-and I am sure he will agree-that there is a difference between discussing the administration of a department and discussing something which does not have to do with the minister's conduct in office or in the house, but his conduct elsewhere as an individual. I did not interrupt the hon. member when he began reading the article because I had no reason to believe that he might not be coming to something which dealt with the administration of the Department of the Secretary of State.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall now.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: So far he has not. I hope this will be the last time the hon. member will oblige me to insist upon asking him to restrain his remarks to the item before the committee. He knows as well as I do that he is unrestricted in his criticism of the Department of the Secretary of State, and I think he will be willing to remain within the limits of the rule.


James Sinclair: I hope so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Sinclair: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And if the Secretary of State wishes to make an honest woman of the Liberal party, and come back to the ranks-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: I withdraw that, sir.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
Secretary of State almost disarms me. But since he made the remark with reservations, I notice he has not withdrawn it without reservations. So I think I am at liberty to comment upon it. It so happens that I am now on my feet discussing the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State.


An hon. Member:: Since when?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would not have used those words myself; they were used by the Secretary of State. It so happens that amongst the responsibilities with which I have been entrusted by my colleagues is that of the supervision, so far as our party is concerned, of the Department of the Minister of Justice. He is not here; but I am quite sure the Secretary of State would not characterize that responsibility as picayune.
Another of the responsibilities with which I am entrusted is that of supervision on behalf of my colleagues, and in co-operation with them, of the estimates and the legislation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I am sure the Secretary of State would not characterize that responsibility as picayune.


Mr. Harris:: I interject at this point only to express the hope that when my hon. friend comes to deal with my estimates he will deal with them in order, as he is not now doing with those of the Secretary of State.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I really think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is a little sensitive. I was not trying to deal with his estimates at the moment. I was trying to deal with the Secretary of State. I was paying him the compliment of suggesting that the Secretary of State would not have characterized his department as a picayune one. And I was going on to point out that, among other things, for which I have had some responsibility at this session, is-


James Sinclair: Point out, or drag out?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not going to dwell upon that.


James Sinclair: He could talk a month.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Among the other matters with which I have been entrusted is the Department of the Secretary of State. Therefore inasmuch as I am quite sure the Secretary of State would not have characterized as picayune those other matters of responsibility with

which I have been charged, I can only assume that he applies that description to his own department.
Well, I looked up in the Oxford English dictionary-and the Secretary of State who is an Oxford graduate will therefore appreciate the source of my authority for the definition-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not write the dictionary, did he?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I looked up in the Oxford dictionary the definition of the word "picayune". He can find it in the library of parliament, page 1495, column 3, as follows: Picayune (as a noun) the U.S. 5-cent piece or other coin of small value; hence, colloquially, an insignificant person or thing.
I would not have used those words myself to describe the responsibilities of the department with which the Secretary of State is entrusted by this government. But apparently that is the word with which he himself chooses to define that responsibility. Then it goes on to say that, as an adjective, the word "picayune" means mean or contemptible. So that, apparently, the Secretary of State has taken it upon himself to come to my own city and to state there that I have been charged with the responsibilities of dealing with a department, with the activities of a cabinet minister, which, according to his own definition as it is set out in the Oxford dictionary, is mean or contemptible. I would not have used those words, myself; and I doubt if the Secretary of State had them in mind when he used the words.


James Sinclair: For his department, or as a member of the cabinet?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries has not been attending very closely.


James Sinclair: Very carefully.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Secretary of State said that I was concerned with picayune matters. One of the matters with which I am concerned is the department of the hon. gentleman himself, and I do not care to follow it very much further. But I do feel that the hon. gentleman, perhaps having described himself by a dictionary definition as picayune Pickersgill-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -should deal with the criticisms which have been made of the department up to this moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word about the one point that the hon. gentleman took an hour to make, namely, that the war claims commission, presided over by the chief justice of Prince Edward Island, is not doing 83276-386J
Supply-Secretary of State this work efficiently and fairly. I do not think that is a charge that is worthy of the hon. member. I do not think it is a charge that on reflection tomorrow he will be very proud of having made. The fact of the matter is that Chief Justice Campbell is following the rules laid down by Chief Justice Ilsley in the report which laid down the principles on which those claims should be dealt with, a report which was accepted by the government, in which the chief justice of Prince Edward Island, at considerable inconvenience to himself-and which he had no obligation whatsoever to do-has undertaken to do as a patriotic duty.
It so happens that the claims that Chief Justice Ilsley said should be dealt with first were the claims of those persons who had been prisoners of war. Almost all of those, except where certain evidence is not yet available that is absolutely essential to a proper adjudication, have already been dealt with and a great many of them, as the Minister of National Revenue attempted to point out when he was not treated very politely by the hon. member for Kamloops, have been paid.
It may be that there are some claims of a complicated character, where the facts are hard to establish and not very well known- these cases do exist; they are inherent in the nature of the situation. Documents were lost in those tragic events in Asia nearly a decade ago. In some of these cases it is very difficult to form a proper adjudication, but I can assure the committee-and I suggest to any member of the committee who has any doubts on this point that he go and see Chief Justice Campbell and ask him about it-that he is pursuing this task with zeal, with vigour and with a sense of justice that is worthy of the best traditions of our bench.
It is true that no property claims have yet been adjudicated, and for the very good reason that Chief Justice Ilsley said we should deal with claims for personal maltreatment before we dealt with property claims. If there is any hon. member who thinks that is a wrong principle, let him rise in his place and say so.


Howard Charles Green: There is one point in connection with handling these claims that I should like to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State. Apparently when Chief Justice Ilsley made his report he suggested that to qualify an applicant must be first of all a Canadian citizen; he must have been a Canadian citizen at the time that the loss or injury occurred and also at the time of the presentation of his claim for adjudication. These two recommendations are fair enough; but he went on to define what the time of application should be in the case of those who had already
6108	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State applied, and as I understand it his finding was that the time of application would be taken as the date on which a commissioner was appointed.
The commissioner was not appointed for some months after Chief Justice Ilsley had made his report. The setting of the time in that way has had a very unfair result in some cases. One case has been drawn to my attention where the person concerned was a Canadian. He was treated very badly by the Japanese; returned to Canada in 1942, and was called here to Ottawa in order to give his version of what had been done to the prisoners by the Japanese. He filed a claim, and then later filed an official claim in 1945. His health had been so undermined by the treatment he received that he was advised by medical men to go to the United States. Incidentally, this man is also a doctor. He went to the United States, and in order to practise there he had to take out United States citizenship. He took out that citizenship in 1951, a short time before Chief Justice Ilsley had made his report. The result is that now he cannot qualify for any compensation. He was a Canadian citizen at the time he suffered the injury, but by the time the commissioner had been appointed in 1952 this Canadian had become a United States citizen, and he cannot qualify for a claim against the United States government because he was not a United States citizen at the time he suffered the injury.
This is a case where the man is entirely innocent. He has done nothing wrong, and I think the arbitrary setting of the date of application as the date on which the commissioner was appointed was not right. The order in council should at least have contained some exception so that where a Canadian had filed his claim earlier, believing that he was meeting all the requirements, he should not be ruled out simply by this arbitrary provision that the date of filing his claim shall be taken as the date the commissioner is appointed. Is there not some way by which a proviso can be written into the order in council which would meet a case of that kind?
I need only cite the facts for hon. members to see that this is an unfair result, and the last people any of us want to see injured are those who actually suffered at the hands of the Japanese. As we all know, they suffered perhaps more than any other Canadian citizens during the war years. I hope that something can be done to meet a situation of this kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I will not speak in detail, but in a general way I am familiar with the particular


case to which the hon. member referred. So far as I can judge from my recollection-I have no papers under my hand-what he has said agrees with the set of facts represented to me. This is the kind of case which was in fact considered by Chief Justice Ilsley specifically in his report. He specifically recommended the exclusion of those cases. The government accepted the Ilsley report. We have varied the report in one respect, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knows. It could be varied in another-there will be some review when these matters get a little further advanced-and if the government then comes to the conclusion that any substantial amount of injustice has been done by this rule there certainly will be a review of the matter. But I think all members of the committee would agree that the first persons who should be considered-and this is in accord with the Ilsley report-are those who were Canadian citizens and still are Canadian citizens.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has said that the first priority was given to cases of claims for personal injury.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Prisoners of war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Prisoners of war, so far as their personal sufferings are concerned, are relatively easy to deal with; but I know of cases where there is a mixture of personal injury and property damage. With respect to the cases that I have in mind neither branch has been adjudicated. I ask the minister what is being done to settle the jurisprudence, if you like, in dealing with these cases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, I am sure the members of the committee will appreciate that I have no degree of familiarity with the detailed operations of this commission. No one would expect me to have. I would think that if a claim or a partial claim- perhaps I am unwise in saying this-were partly for personal injury and partly a property claim and both were made at the one time as one claim it would not be adjudicated in two parts. It might be so adjudicated if there were some representations made. If the hon. member for Kamloops will bring the particular cases he has in mind to my attention I will be glad to get specific explanations in these cases for him just as quickly as I can.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am gratified to have the minister's assurance. However, there is one other point I would like to bring to his attention without going into detail. The recommendation of the commission was that the authority for a claim or the basis for a claim be on a decision as to whether or not a person was a Canadian at the time when the

injury was suffered. I would suggest to him that if he examines at least the tentative rulings which have been made, and I am not prepared to say they are final rulings, he will find there is a tendency on the part of the commission to impose undue technicalities, if you like, in the way of the establishment of the basis of Canadian status on the part of the claimant. I would suggest that the commissioner, Chief Justice Ilsley, left those words in a rather general way and I would suggest to the Secretary of State that they are being interpreted by the commission in a rather narrow and technical fashion. He might well ask the commission itself to undertake a review of the interpretation of Canadian status of all claimants with respect to these things which the claimant must prove in support of his Canadian status before his claim will be recognized.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the first time that this suggestion has been made to me but I shall be very glad to look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
418. Companies branch, $81,495.
Mr. Michener:: Mr. Chairman, having had some experience in a similar department in another field I appreciate something of the work of this branch. I would be interested to know from the minister what number of incorporations have been made in the past calendar year or fiscal year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not carry these figures in my head but I am informed that there have been 838 under part I, and 36 without share capital under part II of the act.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps what I have to say, Mr. Chairman, relates to two or three items and possibly I can discuss them all at this time. This branch, first, is a revenue-producing branch as well as a spending branch and I have taken the trouble to total up the revenue from companies' trade marks, patents, and another small section known as copyright and industrial design. It appears that the revenues amount to about $1,500,000 which is about 57 per cent of the estimates which the minister is now submitting to the committee, and it therefore comes near to paying its way. Two of these items produce a surplus. I note, for example, that according to the estimates trade marks will cost $877,000 and the estimated revenue is $758,000. I would suggest to the minister-and I think this refers to the copyright office-that the privilege of a patent or copyright is a very valuable one to those who acquire it and perhaps that is one of the services which
Supply-Secretary of State might be regarded as worthy of putting on a self-paying basis. I would ask whether the minister has considered increasing the fees in this office so as to put it on a parallel with the other two branches both of which are paying their way so that all three of these branches, which provide a very useful service, would all pay their way.
I ask that because I note that the percentage of increase for this department for this year is 12 per cent if one deducts the unusual expenditure of $1 million last year provided for coronation expenses. That 12 per cent increase is somewhat in excess of the percentage of increase of that useful index known as the gross national product, and perhaps the minister would care to comment on that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to cast any reflection upon the hon. gentleman but perhaps, like most hon. members, he has had to be absent from the house at times and he may have been absent on the day on which this matter was previously discussed and failed to notice that parliament during this session passed a bill increasing the fees. My officials assure me that the increase in patent fees will be enough to produce a surplus next year and I will be very disappointed if there is not a surplus.
In the case of the companies branch I felt the hon. gentleman might have had some criticism to make, because I had some to make when I became minister. I felt they were deriving an undue revenue by not dealing with these matters as expeditiously as they could. It was not because the officials were not zealous, because they are zealous, but because they had not enough staff. It seems to me that if a government undertakes to provide a service, and to exact fees to pay for it, it should give that service. I have no apology to make for the increases in staff in this revenue-producing branch of the department. I think they all ought to pay for themselves, but they should not be regarded as profit-making and enough staff should be provided to deal with the work expeditiously. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me.


Daniel Roland Michener: Just to ensure that I understand the minister correctly, do I understand that these particular fees are based on the fees as approved this session?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
420. Bureau for translations, $1,076,997.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question, if I may. When

Supply-Secretary of State the increase in this department was noted a year ago the Secretary of State at that time said that most of the increase was due to the Department of National Defence, the work of which had been transferred. Would the Secretary of State now say just a word as to the reason for this substantial increase?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Greenwood is perhaps more conscious than most of us of the fact that expenditures tend to increase. He keeps that in his own mind and in the minds of most other hon. members. I am informed that the largest part of this increase is due to the salary increase given to civil servants effective December 1 last.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know whether the Secretary of State is in a position to do so, but if he is I would like him to comment on a suggestion which has been made on several occasions previously. The suggestion is that in the same way as there has been established and put under his authority a bureau for translations responsible for the translations of all departments, there should also be a bureau for publicity responsible for the publicity of all departments, so that if one of his colleagues comes and says, "We have a publication with respect to the treatment of hog cholera which we think should be publicized as being of general interest", then the bureau might undertake to do so. If another department comes and says "We have a treatise on the home freezing of apples that we think is of interest to the people; would you publicize it?", this bureau might undertake it in the same way.
As I understand it, the bureau for translations was established with a view to economizing on the cost of translating which up to that time had been carried on in separate departments under their own control. I want to ask whether the minister does not think that a bureau for publicity might exercise an over-all control and a very healthy limitation upon the amount of government publicity and the cost of government publicity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if it is not unparliamentary, my comment on that suggestion would be "God forbid". I am not and never have been an advocate of thought control. I think the only proper kind of control of government publications outside each department is the control exercised by the treasury board. I would hate to see one minister set up as the censor of another.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What has the minister to say about the bureau for translations? Does his
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
department not exercise control over what shall be translated and what shall not be translated?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. The bureau for translations provides a translation service for each department of government and for parliament. It translates what it is given to translate. It does not decide that something is worth translating or something else is not worth translating. It is simply a service.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there not considered to be a saving in having it centralized in one bureau?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in one case it is suggested that a qualitative judgment be exercised and in the other-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. Taking the minister at his own word that he does not exercise any discretion as to what shall be given publicity and what shall not, may I ask this question? Would there not be the same measure of saving and economy which is now felt to be made by having a centralized bureau for translations? Would there not be some measure of economy by having a central bureau?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that sense there is
already the printing bureau which is responsible to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and copyright office-
423. Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $2,100 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $22,068.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask a question with regard to the Copyright Act and I wish to preface my remarks by reading briefly from last year's Hansard when the estimates of the Secretary of State were under discussion. At page 5304 of Hansard of May 13 of last year this question was asked:


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder if the Secretary of State will say whether be contemplates providing Canadian composers with means for copyrighting their original musical compositions?


Mr. Bradley:: I do not know that there is anything to prevent a Canadian composer from copyrighting his production now.
Then there was a further question and Mr. Bradley then replied as follows:


Frederick Gordon Bradley: As a matter of fact copyright exists without registration, and I do not understand why the particular case to which my hon. friend refers cannot be straightened out.

Then tne non. memDer ior Hamilton West who had been questioning him said this:
This is not a particular case. I have been all through it, and I tried very hard to get Canadian coyright for an original composition. You just cannot get it in Canada.
I now come back to where I started. I want to ask the minister if he will just explain briefly the procedure which is followed. I have been reading the Copyright Act. I take it that there must be some procedure necessary-it is quite clear from the act that there is-but what I am not clear about it is just exactly what evidence is given by the department to the composer on the strength of which he is evidently able, according to the terms of the act, to seek legal remedies if his right is infringed. I repeat my question. I am asking for guidance as to the procedure which needs to be followed and as to the document or whatever it is which is obtained by the grantee for use in evidencing his rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to improvise a little bit, Mr. Chairman. I have not the advantage enjoyed by the hon. member for Greenwood who is a lawyer. However I do not think that advantage helps much in this case. As I understand it, copyright is inherent. You own the copyright if you produce the thing, regardless of whether you register it or not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a question just there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You say you own the copyright if you produce it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you produce the article, the music or the writing or whatever it is, the copyright is your property without regard to anything you may do at the copyright office.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If you produce it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you write it down on a piece of paper, it is yours; you own it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But how do you prove prior claim?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. lady could be patient for just a moment or two I will come to that matter. I was coming to it next. Of course you can defend that right in the courts without having anything to do with the copyright office at all. You can simply go to the courts and if you can prove that you wrote the thing in the first place, or that you composed the music in the first place, then it belongs to you, it is your property
Supply-Secretary of State and it does not enter into the public domain for a certain number of years. I do not profess to know how many years that is.
The object of the copyright office is to facilitate the proving of the fact of ownership, and there is there the facility for registering these claims of ownership in order to help prove ownership and to make it easier to collect royalties. I do not think the hon. member for Hamilton West last year was quite right in saying that you could not establish the copyright. I know there is a great deal of feeling that a Canadian composer cannot profit from his copyright or that it was very difficult unless he joins one of these associations which hold copyright to get any benefit from copyright. I have heard this contention. This is something that has been alleged to me, and is one of the things that I hope is going to be elucidated by the royal commission which was set up last week under Chief Justice Ilsley.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I just read briefly from section 36 and confirm my understanding that there is a register. Subsection 1 of section 36 of the Copyright Act reads as follows:
Every register of copyrights under this act shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein and documents purporting to be copies of any entries therein or extracts therefrom, certified by the commissioner of patents or the registrar of copyrights, and sealed with the seal of the copyright office, shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof or production of the originals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that a proper and normal way of proceeding or is it not? The Secretary of State a year ago seemed to me to cast doubt on that method and it is for the purpose of being clear on it that I am raising the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is a convenience that anyone can use who wants to do so. A professional writer would do it, I imagine, almost automatically; but I doubt whether the hon. member for Greenwood has ever taken the trouble to copyright his speeches.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Quite right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that they
belong to him and if someone reproduces them without his permission he would have a cause of action. Whether or not the courts would decide that the damages were great, I do not know. I would think they would consider that far from its being a damage, it was an advantage to him. I know that that is the view I take. If anybody, even the hon. member for Kamloops, will repro-
6110	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State duce to a larger audience the things I have said to an audience of one, in my view it is free advertising.
But to come back to the point and to be a little bit more serious about this matter, may I say this. My understanding is that the registration of copyright is simply to facilitate the proving of ownership. It has been suggested that there is, in the music-producing world, a combine or combination which, if a composer does not belong to it, is able to make it almost impossible for the composer to get any profit out of any music composed in Canada. Whether or not this is true I have no means of knowing. I have no doubt that the people who make that allegation will make representations to the Ilsley commission, that the people against whom the allegations are made will attempt to rebut them and that, in the next year or two, we shall have something to guide us in this matter which I confess I have not at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not wish to give any wider publicity to the remarks of the Secretary of State, but I appreciate the remarks he has made. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to give us a progress report? Is there anything on which he would desire to report progress with respect to the commission recently established?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I understand that Chief Justice Ilsley is coming to Ottawa on Saturday to hold the first meeting of the commission which, considering it was only appointed on the 10th is, I believe, rather expeditious, and what hon. members would expect of Chief Justice Ilsley.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I want to say a word to confirm what the Secretary of State has just said about copyrights. He is perfectly correct that under the act a copyright subsists in any original artistic, literary or scientific work and that the registration is just a convenience to prove prima facie in court ownership of the copyright. It also must be used, under a further provision of the act, in the case of a licensee who wants to claim damages from the original author.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I really had not intended to enter this discussion tonight but I do have in a file on my desk the correspondence which I had with the department subsequent to my inquiry of last year, and I cannot conceive what good the registration is if the registry office does not keep a record of the actual content of the work, manuscript or whatever
FMr. Pickersgill.]

it may be. In circular No. 105, which was sent to me as an example, the final paragraph reads as follows:
Copies of the works are not required for registration of copyright and, if received, they will he returned to the sender.
I know from experience that is not the case in Washington. If you have a musical work you make a copy of it, send it to Washington and register it there. If my memory serves me correctly, you are protected for something like twenty years. I am not a lawyer either so I find it a little difficult to wade through all this stuff, but as nearly as I can tell all you can register in Canada is a name. You write to the department and say: I have a composition which I call "All of the King's Men". They say: "All right, that is yours, nobody has that name ahead of you and you are protected on that name". But it could cover Beethoven's fifth symphony or anything else as far as the department is concerned. There is not a thing on record to indicate to them what it covers.
Consequently the person who seeks to protect his own composition is not protected at all because anyone can say that it is not the composition he has protected under that name. That is something that I think should be corrected. I think our own composers should be protected against the stealing of their works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will make a point of bringing the remarks of the hon. member to the attention of Chief Justice Ilsley and I am sure they will be considered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope that private members on the government side will observe the precedent established by the hon. member for Ottawa East and correct, enlarge upon and direct the remarks of cabinet ministers in the future.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a good precedent.


James Sinclair: Better advice than they will get from you.


Mr. Charlton:: There is one point which I think the Secretary of State should explain. It seems quite obvious that there is quite a considerable increase in postage for each item in his department. The increase amounts to some $6,860 in all, and with the exception of two items where postage is not mentioned there is quite an increase in each one. Will the minister explain why that increase is necessary?

Supply-Secretary of State


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope it is not because of Mr. Charlton: I take it that this is for mail all the mail I send to Newfoundland.	sent outside of Canada. Is that true?


John Alpheus Charlton: Of course that is not an explanation. When the cost of postage goes up from nothing to $3,500 in one case there is a reason for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand it is because of a change in the accounting system of the Post Office Department. They used to provide the service free and now they charge it to the government departments.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I hope I was responsible for that.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is not the whole
explanation because there were items for postage rates in previous years.


Walter Edward Harris: You will find these items in all the estimates this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You do not find the explanation given by the Secretary of State.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You do not find the Secretary of State-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, I think the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand should be allowed to ask his question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He was and you were not answering.


James Sinclair: You have not got a monopoly here. You should be the whole Tory party.


John Alpheus Charlton: The Secretary of State should also be allowed to answer the question and the Minister of Fisheries should not try to answer for him.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think the whole explanation is that you did not pay postage before because items for postage have appeared in other years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I read what I have in my notes which I assure the hon. member is all I know about the subject. The money required is to provide for the cost of registered mail, special delivery, parcel post, air mail and all mail addressed for delivery outside of Canada, the United States and Mexico. This increase results from the discontinuance of free postage credit and postal meters for prepayment and dispatch of the above mentioned mail.


James Sinclair: Good business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot add anything to that. If the hon. member needs any more information I will try to get it and give it to him tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what it says here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Public archives and national library.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, it is now after ten o'clock.


James Sinclair: Let us get it through.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is after ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I might appeal to the good sense of the hon. member for Kamloops, who has just called it ten o'clock, and suggest, without stressing the point, that on another occasion we did go to some trouble to arrange the business of the house to meet his convenience and ask him if he would not consent to go on at this time and finish these particular estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think we carried item 730 on a previous occasion. I was not objecting to carrying items 728, 729 and 730.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is perfectly correct. Item 730 was taken on another day to meet the convenience of certain hon. members. I wonder whether the committee would agree to go on for a little while with the archives and the other small items I have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which items are they?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Public archives and national library, resolution 350, to be found on page 50.
Public archives-
350.	General administration and technical services, $297,020.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say a few words on this item because I am very interested in the work done by those connected with the public archives and the national library. First of all may I say that I think the majority of members appreciate the valuable and excellent work being done by our dominion archivist and his staff. I am interested in history myself and on a good number of occasions they have rendered me very quick and courteous service in looking up matters that were of particular interest to me or some of my constituents. I think the dominion archivist and his staff are doing excellent work in collecting and preserving the records of this country. That is a very much more important matter than many Canadians realize at this time, although I am pleased to note that more and more people are recognizing the good work being done by our public archivist. They are doing that
6112	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State work with the co-operation of quite a number of local organizations, historical societies and individuals throughout the country who spend a great deal of time gathering material and facts concerning local history and preserving them to that extent.
Earlier this evening one hon. member spoke about a system of awards. May I say that I support a system of awards as outlined which would recognize outstanding service in this country by outstanding Canadians and ordinary people. In this connection I suggest that there are many people in this country-you find them in the little communities all over Canada; you find them in various communities in British Columbia, they are relatively few in number-who have worked for years and taken the trouble to collect local historical documents, keep records of organizations and things of that sort; relics that are of increasing value as the years go by. Many of them are making contributions to local historical societies and also making their contributions to provincial and dominion archives. I believe there should be some appropriate system by which recognition is given to the willing and co-operative service rendered by these individuals.
I would ask the Secretary of State to consider whether it would not be possible for either the historical sites and monuments board or some other recognized authority to devise some system of certificates that could be awarded to people who had made outstanding contributions to preserving history, even in the local or community field. I think official recognition would be a good connecting link between the individuals who do this kind of work throughout the years, and the more or less official bodies, the historical societies and our provincial and national archives.
I have just another word or two to say, Mr. Chairman. From time to time we hear in this house criticism of the expenditure of public funds for archives, for libraries, for paintings, for the development of music, of art, and culture in other directions. We are not very far from the pioneer stage. Some of our more practical people, sometimes people who are more or less over-infected with bourgeois opinions, resent expenditure of public moneys on these things. We in this group take the opposite view. We believe that a vote for expenditures on these things is a vote for progress and the development of our civilization.
In that connection I just want to mention something I noticed in a recent issue of the New York Times. It is dated May 16, and is an article dealing with the amount of


money being spent by the government of Turkey on music and activities of that sort. I wish to quote a few figures which I feel should shame Canadians who are opposed to the expenditure of money on such things as archives, national libraries, books, music and so on. I quote:
Turkey has had a state opera since 1949 and its government has appropriated $3,300,000 for the building of a new opera house in Istanbul. Besides this the government gives $750,000 a year to the state theatre and opera in Ankara; $350,000 a year to the Turkish philharmonic, and about $150,000 a year to the Turkish national conservatory where the 300 students, besides getting free tuition, are also provided with board, lodging and clothing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ten o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not like the hon. member for Kamloops to say ten o'clock. As one of my colleagues said quietly, some contributions made to the debate this evening would cause one who gives any thought to the question to come to the conclusion that Mr. Cecil Rhodes failed somewhat in his attempt to civilize the colonials by granting scholarships. Now, Mr. Chairman, that comment is intended to be in good humour and spirit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ten o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suggest that if this government were to perhaps spend a similar amount on the things that I have mentioned there would be a strong protest from some people. However, I think we can learn a lesson from the amount of money spent by the government of Turkey upon such things as music, libraries, museums and activities of that sort. I am very pleased to see the increased amount that is in the estimates, and I trust that next year there will be a further increase. I notice there is an increase this year of $14,816 for the archives, which is little enough for the very important work to be done by our dominion archivist and his staff.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As one who benefited
from the generosity of the late Cecil John Rhodes, I rise with some hesitation after what has been said by the previous speaker. I understand we have agreed to discuss this item and I want to say a word about it. We spend a good many billion dollars for a certain type of protection against danger which confronts us, but it remained for a distinguished soldier to remind us this week that in the last analysis the final protection is not going to be tanks and guns, it is going to be the things for which libraries stand. Therefore, I believe it is well we should pause at this moment and not cry ten

o'clock when people are talking about libraries. I should like to endorse what has been said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since there seems to have been some reference to the cry of "ten o'clock" I make no apology whatever for the fact that I have suggested, when my hon. friend was discussing what was spent in Turkey for matters of public archives, and so on, that it was not germane to the discussion of the estimates of the Secretary of State. If I am uncultured and uncouth, if I have not benefited-


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -by the education to which I was exposed overseas, I do ask my hon. friend not to lay the blame on Cecil John Rhodes, but to lay the blame right here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not hear my friend say ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National library-
351.	General administration, $102,998.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Secretary of State say a word as to what is the status of the national library? I realize that when we talk about the national library we are talking about two things; one, the institution, the collection of books and so on, and the other the building. Perhaps it is the latter that I had in mind in my question. What is the status of that aspect of the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the hon. member, who is an expert on the rules, realizes he is out of order. The question should have been asked of the Minister of Public Works. However, I shall do my best to reply. Plans are being prepared for a building, and a site has been chosen on which one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the temporary wartime buildings is now situated. It is hoped that it can be torn down by the time plans are complete, and we can proceed just as expeditiously as, in the circumstances, would be possible with this project which the government has no desire to delay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is that site?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the No. 1 temporary building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
352.	Payment to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books, in conformity with section 12 of the National Library Act, $40,000.
Mr. Hamilton:: I notice that this is the last item of the minister's estimates-
83276-387 J
Supply-Secretary of State


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two more.


William McLean Hamilton: I have a general question dealing with the operations of the department. Would the minister prefer to have it now or on the last item?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member had better ask the question now if it is in order. The estimates of the Secretary of State have been completed and we are now dealing with the various agencies for which he speaks in parliament.


William McLean Hamilton: Since this is the last item under that category perhaps we could deal with it here; I refer particularly to the sometimes careless and irresponsible way in which certain questions which are placed on the order paper in this house are handled, specifically by the Secretary of State. I have one example here. I am quite happy to see the Minister of Fisheries is in the house as well because he got into the act as he seems to do on a number of occasions. This question referred to government publications. Perhaps we should define our terms so the Secretary of State and myself will be talking about the same things.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am afraid the hon. member is definitely out of order in discussing that matter at this particular time. The estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State as such were passed some little time ago. The Secretary of State officials have left the chamber, and the resolutions have been sent away from the chamber. We have before us now only the vote for the public archives; and we may, if we reach them, have the votes for the chief electoral officer and the civil service commission. I am afraid I must rule at the moment that the hon. member's question is out of order, because it is. But perhaps I might make the suggestion that he raise it when the items for legislation, including the operation of this chamber, are before the house. They have not yet been called.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil service commission-
77. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $2,300,379.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, as the committee has come to expect, I rise each year to urge upon the Secretary of State the appointment of a woman to the civil service commission, if and when the next vacancy occurs. But on this particular occasion I feel I must bring to the attention of the committee one or two things that have occurred recently and which seem to me to bear out my contention that there should be a woman on that board.

Supply-Secretary of State
I hold in my hand a sheet from the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, June 9, in which appears a group photograph of what is described as 31 branch heads in 20 civil service departments undergoing a special experimental course on government administration at Kemptville agricultural school. I point out that in this photograph there are no women present.
I was intrigued by this. I had seen previously the announcement of this school which was to be set up over a period of four weeks and which, I believe, terminates on June 18. I made it my business to inquire into the matter and found that although there are a number of women in the same grade of posts as those who were at the conference none of them found her way to that conference for this instruction on administration. That is just one item that has come to my attention.
The other one I think is a little more serious because, while the one I have just mentioned could have developed through oversight or failing to realize that there may have been some administrative officers in the civil service who would have been eligible but who, for one reason or another, found they could not attend, nevertheless in this other case there is obviously a definite instance of discrimination. I bring this to the attention of the Secretary of State to support my contention that one of the commissioners should be a woman, someone who can understand the conditions under which women in the civil service work.
I have here a letter which came to me from the city of Toronto. In it is set out the case of those students who were enrolled in the course at the University of Toronto which is known as the course on political science and economics. The third-year class in this course is made up equally of girls and boys. Early this year the Department of Citizenship and Immigration circularized the third-year students and offered summer employment to six undergraduates, and permanent employment to an unspecified number of graduates.
The type of work indicated was that for which these students were preparing themselves. And so, all the members in the third year applied for this summer employment. Application forms were transmitted to the civil service commission, and the applicants awaited results. I am informed that this particular third-year class had been headed by several girls, that the boys, in the main, were in the intermediate class between the top grade and the lower grade, and that there were no boys at all in the top grade. Yet not one of those girls was interviewed, not a single one. All the boys in the class were interviewed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is listening.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think it is his responsibility; it just happened to affect his department. Once the Department of Citizenship and Immigration had signified its willingness to give employment, I think the matter passed out of the minister's hands and became the responsibility of the civil service commission. From then on I do not think it was the minister's department which was responsible.
However the point is that if girls are not to be considered for these posts, then why have them take the course in the first place? Why let them waste their time? Why would not the president of the university, the deans of faculties and the heads of courses be advised that under no circumstances would women be given recognition by the government of Canada in these posts? Why send a circular to the whole class and say, "We will employ half a dozen undergraduates for summer employment and employ a further number of graduates"? After doing that, why say "We will interview only boys from that class"? It seems to me perfectly ridiculous. When these girls in the class made their complaint to the civil service commission the replies they received were evasive in the extreme, and to this day they have received no satisfactory reply.
This is just one more example of the discrimination which is exercised to some extent. I do not know how widespread it is, but I do think there is a misunderstanding of the role which these women graduates can play in the public service of Canada.
Once again I urge strongly that when the first vacancy occurs on the civil service commission preference should be given to a woman commissioner to fill that vacancy. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree with me that in the civil service of Canada we are not lacking in competent women who could fill that post.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I must defend my political reputation by saying a word or two in reply to the hon. member. In the first place I find myself, I will not say in complete agreement with everything she said, but quite sympathetic to everything she said. I certainly agree that there are plenty of women in this country just as competent to be civil service commissioners as are a great many of the men in this country. I agree furthermore that women, whenever they have the qualifications, should not be discriminated against. For my part I have always been rather a feminist, and I never have found any reason to change my views.

Now having protected my present position I think I ought to protect my future position by saying that the Secretary of State really occupies a very peculiar position in relation to the civil service commission. The civil service commission is not responsible to the government, but to parliament. The Secretary of State is only a sort of connecting link or, perhaps, a drain pipe between the civil service commission and parliament. And I will draw to the attention of the commission the hon. lady's remarks, although I do not think it will be necessary because I am sure they will have been drawn to their attention already. They will also see what I have said in encouragement of what she has said.
As to future appointments, of course the Secretary of State does not even recommend appointments to the civil service commission. I just say that so if the hon. lady's wishes in future should not be carried out by a government of which I might be a humble member, she will not hold me politically responsible.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course not. On the other hand, the commission itself does not appoint its own members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite; they are appointed by the government.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: These instances which I have described here tonight merely substantiate my claim. I did not expect that the Secretary of State would have any jurisdiction over those particular instances. I know that is a matter for the civil service commission; but I still say that until one of these commissioners is a woman, the women in the civil service will not have a sympathetic ear at the highest administrative level, and thus of the actual commission itself.
The day will come, and I would think not too far distant-probably before the Secretary of State presents another set of estimates in this house-when there will be an appointment to that commission. I want to say right now that if or when that appointment is made I hope the Secretary of State will not come to this house and make apologetic remarks for having appointed another gentleman to that commission. I hope that his search, or the search which is apparently now being made by the government, by its representatives or by whoever is responsible for the appointment of commissioners to that commission, will extend among the women who are giving service to this government in the civil service at the present time and that it will not be confined merely to the male members of that service.
Supply-Secretary of State


Daniel Roland Michener: I suppose this vote is for the personnel department of government. I suppose you might call the commission that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman realizes it is not a department of government at all, and is not even responsible to the government.


Daniel Roland Michener: Whether it is responsible to the government or not, it is the commission which selects and appoints a good number of the civil servants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: Can the minister give us information as to the number of civil servants who are appointed by the civil service commission because I know that some are and some are not? I should like to have the figure of those who are appointed by the commission and also the figure of the total payroll of those who are appointed by the commission. That may take a little while to get, but it is a condition on which I will permit this item to pass.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might crave the hon. gentleman's permission, without prejudicing the passing of this vote, to put that on Hansard the next time we are in committee, because I would not like to give any figures I might have now or any offhand information about figures of this kind because it is very important that if they are given they should be right.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is quite satisfactory, Mr. Chairman, if it is done in that way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let the item stand.


Daniel Roland Michener: No; I shall be quite satisfied to have the information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be glad to give it on the orders of the day.


Daniel Roland Michener: The information I want is the number of civil servants, in round figures for whose appointment the civil service commission is responsible, and the total payroll of that group of civil servants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the minister add the balance of the payroll?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be very glad to do that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will not delay the committee for more than a couple of minutes, but I do want the minister to draw to the attention of the commission-I think that is the right phrase-representations which have been made to me by a group of ex-service

Supply-Secretary of State men that they might be entitled to the veterans preference in the same way as other veterans who have served in the Canadian forces or who have served in the Imperial forces and had prior domicile in Canada are entitled to a preference. There are a number of men who served in commonwealth forces other than the Canadian forces in world war II who have come to Canada, who have lived in Canada for five years and have now taken out Canadian citizenship. Will the minister ask the commission to give consideration to the desirability or the possibility of granting that group of men, now that they have lived in this country for five years and have become Canadian citizens, the same veterans preference as the men who served in the Canadian forces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would rather doubt
wnether it would be competent for the civil service commission to do that. I would think that is something that would have to be done by parliament. The hon. gentleman has made his representations, and members of the committee have heard them, and I shall see that my colleagues are advised of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are some figures that I should like to ask the Secretary of State to obtain as well. If he wishes to deal with them in the same way as he suggested in reply to the hon. member for St. Paul's that would be satisfactory. He will find that on previous occasions I have asked for the break-down of civil servants into several groups: permanent, temporary, temporary-permanent and others. I wonder whether he can produce those figures for the present time, and also the same figures for say five years ago, in order to show what the trend is? And if at the same time he would give the total number of people employed by the government on a prevailing rate basis I would appreciate it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to do the best I can. As far as these figures are concerned, I think the hon. gentleman knows that there would not be a strict compatibility any more because under the new set-up the main difference between permanents and temporaries as to whether they were under superannuation or not has been, if I may use a vulgarism, largely washed out. It would be very hard to draw the kind of line suggested, but in so far as it can be done, in so far as I can figure out any way to get the information, I will be glad to comply with my hon. friend's request.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have one other matter. I realize that a question was placed on the

order paper earlier this session in regard to this. Can the Secretary of State tell us why it was necessary to issue a questionnaire to retired civil servants inquiring into particulars of any employment which they may have taken subsequent to their retirement. I know that this particular questionnaire caused a considerable amount of concern among some of these people. If they had served their time with the government and retired on superannuation my own opinion would be that it is none of their business whether they took subsequent employment or not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite sure that no such questionnaire was issued by the civil service commission. It may be that is something that had something to do with the operation of the superannuation act. I shall be glad to draw the hon. lady's question to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and suggest that he reply on his estimates.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do apologize. Now that I have looked at it the second time I see that the questionnaire is headed "The Department of Finance".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: I move that the house do now adjourn. Tomorrow we shall take the amendments to the Bank Act which were made in the Senate; then the resolution with respect to the Judges Act. I have reason to believe that hon. members opposite will find it convenient to pass it through all stages with little or no debate. Then we shall take the estimates of the departments of trade and commerce, veterans affairs, mines and technical surveys, legislation, fisheries and any others we may have time for.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When shall we have the privilege of having the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration? We are all so extremely anxious to hear from the minister on that.


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that the house is anxious to support the minister in the policy he has adopted over the years. Had I had my way they would have been before the house some time last week.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which of your cabinet colleagues is opposing bringing them on?


An hon. Member:: The hon. gentleman opposite.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Am I one of his cabinet colleagues?


James Sinclair: You are the devil's advocate of the cabinet.


Walter Edward Harris: I know hon. members opposite will not take this in anything more than a helpful sense, but I have a good many requests for special consideration on special days and many hon. members have spoken to me before the hon. member for Kamloops and I feel I will have to carry out these engagements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister will not take our silence a moment ago as indicating that we necessarily agree to the proposition that the Judges Act might be put through all its stages in one day. We may agree; but let us not take it as being agreed tonight.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.43 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Air services-
Meteorological division-
489.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,963,110.
490.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $557,500.
Civil aviation division-
491.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $998,050.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
492.	Civil aviation services, $9,262,302.
493.	Airway and airport traffic control, $1,694,831. Construction services-
494.	Administration, $869,185.
495.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including construction work on municipal airports, $10,737,291.
496.	Grants to organizations for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $280,000.
497.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations, $93,300.
498.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $240,000.
499.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1954, which is, $259,340.
Supply-Transport
Administrative division-
500.	Air services administration, $255,486.
B-General-
Air transport board-
501.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $274,089.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
502.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $952,030.
Canadian maritime commission-
503.	Administration, $160,520.
504.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $4,147,725.
National harbours board-
505.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1954 on any or all of the following accounts: Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Halifax, $989,500; Saint John, $1,815,000; Quebec, $1,365,000; Churchill, $900,000; generally unforeseen and miscellaneous, $200,000; total, $5,269,500.
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement funds, $387,000; $4,882,500.
506.	To provide for payment to national harbours board, of the amount hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on dominion government advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1954, in the operation of the Churchill harbour, $95,761.
Loans, investments and advances-
Transport-
Railway and steamship services-
542.	Loans to the Canadian National Railways Company, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, to be applied towards the construction cost of a new dock and facilities at Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A., a terminal of the Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbour, Maine, ferry service, $1,000,000.
Air services-
543.	To provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying, and for future development of those airports, $1,000,000.
National harbours board-
544.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1954 on any or all of the following accounts: Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Three Rivers, $380,000; Montreal, $3,558,200.; Vancouver, $376,000, total, $4,314,200.
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement funds, $175,580; $4,138,620.
A-Department-
Air services-
Civil aviation division-
748.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder-further amount required, $19,700.
Airways and airports-
Construction services-
749. Administration-further	amount required, $101,640.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
750.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including construction work on municipal airports-further amount required, $187,984.
751.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports and land acquired by such organizations- further amount required, $86,000.
752.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $2,000.
753.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of April 1954-further amount required, $347.
B-General-
Air transport board-
754.	Subventions for air carriers, as detailed in the estimates, $20,000.
Canadian maritime commission-
755.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $8,375.
National harbours board-
756.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1954 on any or all of the following accounts: Reconstruction and capital expenditures-Halifax-further amount required, $550,000, Saint John-further amount required, $350,000; $900,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Railway and steamship services-
764.	Loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, for the redemption of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, 25-year, 5 per cent, government guaranteed gold bonds, issued March 1, 1930, and maturing March 1, 1955, $3,600,000.
Air services-
765.	To provide for recoverable advances to enable extension of the northwest communication system facilities between Edmonton and the Yukon-Alaska border, $31,000.
766.	Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $683,561.
National harbours board-
767.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1954 on the following account: Reconstruction and capital expenditures- Montreal-further amount required, $600,000.

[Stage Direction]
Office of the chief electoral officer-
55. Salaries and expenses of office, $59,442.
Civil service commission-
77. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $2,300,379.
Public archives and national library-
A-Public archives-
350.	General administration and technical services, $297,020.
B-National library-
351.	General administration, $102,998.
352.	Payment to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books, in conformity with section 12 of the National Library Act, $40,000.
Public Printing and Stationery-
353.	Departmental administration, $557,882.
354.	Stationery branch-operation of stationery-stores, $418,145.
355.	Printing and binding the annual statutes, $40,000.
356.	Canada Gazette, $120,000.
357.	Plant equipment and replacements, $341,773.
358.	Distribution of official documents, $246,986.
359.	Printing and binding of official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $430,000.
417.	Departmental administration, $262,619.
418.	Companies branch, $81,495.
419.	Trade marks branch, including a contribution of $2,400 to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $135,727.
420.	Bureau for translations, $1,076,997.
Patent and copyright office-
421.	Administration division, $84,835.
422.	Patent division, $949,248.
423.	Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $2,100 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $22,068.
728.	Companies branch-further amount required, $9,500.
Patent and copyright office-
729.	Patent division-further amount required, $43,200.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 17, 1954