1955-02-28

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY   EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table an exchange of two letters in English and in French between myself and the United States ambassador to Canada concerning the St. Lawrence seaway project. This exchange embodies certain conclusions reached as a result of the recent discussions between representatives of the two governments.
The two main conclusions are: First, the United States administration will seek approval of congress to be relieved of the necessity under public law 358 of duplicating the canal which the Canadian government proposes to build at Iroquois. Secondly, the Canadian government states that it does not propose under present conditions to duplicate the navigation facilities for 27 feet or lesser draft on opposite sides of the St. Lawrence river to by-pass the dams in the Cornwall-Barnhart island area.
In short, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of both governments not to duplicate under present conditions navigation work under construction which by-passes the international rapids section.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 185, to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers).


Mr. Argue:: Explain.


Ray Thomas: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to place the political affiliation of the various candidates on the ballot papers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 186, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as provincial legislation has proven ineffective to control the wanton pollution by municipalities and industrial concerns of interprovincial rivers, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide punishment for the offence of water pollution.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Mitchell (London):: 1.	How many passenger cars of all types were purchased by Canadian National Railways from firms outside Canada during the year 1954?
2.	By what company or companies were such cars manufactured?
3.	Were tenders invited for all of such cars before the contracts were let?
4.	Can these cars be manufactured on a competitive basis by Canadian National Railways car shops, and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:-
1.	Though some passenger cars ordered previously were delivered in 1954, the only passenger cars purchased by Canadian National Railways from firms outside of Canada during the year 1954 were 5 R.D.C. self-propelled cars.
2.	Budd Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3.	No.
4.	No. Budd Company is the patentee and only manufacturer.



PARITY PRICES


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What farm organizations, if any, have made representations since August 1, 1954, dealing with the question of parity prices or floor prices for agricultural products?

Questions
2.	What was the nature of each representation and the reply in each case?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	The Canadian Federation of Agriculture; the Interprovincial Farm Union Council.
2.	The representations were to the effect that a system providing parity based upon a formula be established in Canada.
The answer given was to the effect that the United States system of parily prices based upon a formula was considered in 1944 when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was enacted and it was decided that the plan as provided for in section 9 of the act would be preferable. In our opinion, experience has shown this to have been wise.



CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATES, YORK COUNTY

Mr. Michener:: How many certificates of citizenship were granted in York county in each of the years 1946 to 1954 inclusive?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the house for having misled it when I answered the other parts of the question of which this part is now left.
The material to answer this question is not in the possession of my department; it is in the possession of the court which is under provincial jurisdiction. I actually obtained information which I believe is correct and gave it to the hon. gentleman, but I do not think it would be proper for me to place it on the records of parliament as the information does not come from the federal government. I understand that the hon. member for St. Paul's is quite satisfied.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



OLD AGE SECURITY

Mr. Holowach:: 1.	How many people 70 years of age and over are presently residing in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	How many persons in each province are presently receiving old age security pensions?
3.	How many Canadian citizens in each province are disqualified from receiving old age security by reason that they have not been resident in Canada for 20 years?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	The dominion bureau of statistics, in its latest available report on this subject dated June 1, 1954, estimated that the number of persons 70 years of age and over, by provinces, was as follows: Newfoundland, 16,400; Prince Edward Island, 7,000; Nova Scotia, 37,600; New Brunswick, 26,700; Quebec, 154,300; Ontario, 269,100; Manitoba, 44,000; Saskatchewan, 44,700; Alberta, 44,300; British Columbia, 87,400; Yukon and Northwest Territories, no figures available.
TMr. Argue.]
2.	The number of old age security
pensioners in each province, as of January 31, 1955 was as follows: Newfoundland, 15,674; Prince Edward Island, 6,772; Nova Scotia, 37,677;	New Brunswick,	26,899;	Quebec,157,669;	Ontario,	273,799;	Manitoba,	44,283;
Saskatchewan, 44,468; Alberta, 45,090; British Columbia, 89,427; Yukon and Northwest Territories, 530.
For purposes of comparison with the dominion bureau of statistics estimates it is thought advisable to give the number of old age security pensioners as of May 31, 1954. Newfoundland, 15,361; Prince Edward Island, 6,727; Nova Scotia, 37,315; New Brunswick, 26,582;	Quebec,	153,911;	Ontario,	266,849;Manitoba, 43,036; Saskatchewan, 43,181; Alberta,	43,357;	British	Columbia,	85,980;
Yukon and Northwest Territories, 486.
It will be noted that as of that date the dominion bureau of statistics estimate of persons over 70 exceeded to some degree the number of old age security pensioners in pay in each province. While the number of pensioners is a precise figure, the dominion bureau of statistics figures are estimates only. There would normally be an excess of persons beyond 70 years of age over the number of old age security pensioners because certain of these persons would not have had sufficient residence in Canada to be eligible in that respect.
3.	There is no precise information available to show the number of persons in each province at any time who are disqualified from receiving old age security because they have not been resident in Canada for 20 years. In some cases individuals do not apply because they know they lack the required residence. In other cases, individuals may have been disqualified by lack of residence at the time they applied, only to become eligible a few months later. In still other cases, those rejected earlier because of lack of residence may have died since, or may have left Canada. At any one date it would not be possible to tell how many persons 70 years of age or over, live in Canada and are ineligible to receive old age security pension because of lack of sufficient residence here.



PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS


Mr. Zaplitny:: 1.	Did public contracts of the Department of Public Works contain the following clause in any year since 1934: "Transportation of material and plant: All material and plant used in connection with the execution of this contract must be transported over railways operating in Canada, or waterways, to the greatest possible extent"?
2.	Do present contracts contain this clause now?
3.	If not, when was the clause deleted, by whose order, and for what reason?

4.	Has the deleted clause been replaced by any comparable clause directing the transportation of material and plant used in the execution of contracts?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	(a) On December 29, 1953; (b) by Department of Public Works; (c) to conform with practice followed by other government departments.
4.	No.



FTJNDY NATIONAL PARK, N.B.  IMPORTED STEEL

Mr. Bell:: 1.	Has any imported steel been used since the beginning of 1953 in the Fundy national park, Albert county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, where was this steel imported from and under what circumstances?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The department has knowledge of only one case where imported steel has been used at Fundy park since the beginning of 1953. Following a call for tenders for steel piling and other steel items required for shore protection work in the park, a purchase order was issued on September 14, 1953, to the Pictou Foundry and Machine Company of Pictou, Nova Scotia, the only company submitting a complete tender. The material was delivered in four railway carloads, three from the Algoma Steel Company at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and the fourth from Saint John, New Brunswick. So far as the department is aware the carloads from Sault Ste. Marie contained steel produced at that place. The carload from Saint John, however, was shown as coming from the steamship Bassano and the steel itself was stamped "Middles-brouch Dorman Lang Germany".



CANORA, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. Casileden:: 1.	What steps have been taken to provide accommodation for the proper operation of the post office at Canora, Saskatchewan?
2.	Have any recommendations been made to the Department of Public Works to provide for this accommodation?
3.	If so. when were the recommendations made and what are the details of same?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1.	An addition to the present building has been recommended.
2.	Yes.
3.	May 1950-initial representation. March 1954-indicating high priority.
Questions



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT-FIRES

Mr. Casileden:: 1.	What fires or accidents have occurred in connection with the present restoration work on the library of parliament?
2.	What was the cause and extent of the damage at each of such fires or accidents?


Mr. Winters:: 1 and 2.
Fire March 17, 1954.
Small fire started between the old copper roof and wood sheathing. Subcontractors placing cross-bracing stiffeners between trusses. Exact cause of fire unknown. Attributed to either short circuit from temporary lighting in this area, or from cutting torch.
Fire department extinguished fire before any headway made. Small area charred was part of that later demolished as per original plans.
Fire November 5, 1954.
Subcontractor working Saturday to rush installation of steelwork of lantern, started small fire on upper scaffolding, caused by hot metal from cutting torch. Loss, two tarpaulins and two sheets of plywood, and three scaffold planks charred. Subcontractor's insurance covered the loss and prime contractor reimbursed at no cost to the department.
Accident, December 14, 1954.
Part of remaining tunnel and slab of the main library floor being demolished collapsed. Six men sent to hospital for treatment. Four returned to job after the New Year holiday and were not detained in the hospital. The remaining two were hospitalized, each with a leg injury, one having fractured wrists. Both men are now in walking casts, all injuries and treatment covered by compensation at no cost to the department.
Section of floor that collapsed was due to be demolished and removed.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What rate of interest is charged for overdue income tax payments?
2.	What rate of interest is allowed by the income tax department for overpayments collected by their officials?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The rate of interest on overdue income tax payments is 6 per cent for 1949 and subsequent taxation years. Where the rate for a year prior to 1949 was more than 6 per cent, such rate is reduced to 6 per cent with effect from January 1, 1950.
2.	The rate of interest on overpayments
is:	(a) For 1948 and 1949 taxation years,

Questions
2 per cent amounts up to $5,000, plus J of 1 per cent on amounts over $5,000; (b) For 1950 and 1951 taxation years, 2 per cent; (c) For 1952 and subsequent years, 6 per cent if the overpayment arises by reason of an allowed objection or successful appeal by the taxpayer, and 2 per cent in all other cases.



C.G.S. &quot;WALTER E. FOSTER&quot;-CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Bell:: 1.	Where was the C.G.S. Walter E. Foster built?
2.	Were tenders called for this construction?
3.	At the time of launching of this vessel was it intimated that three similar ships, a St. Lawrence ship channel vessel and a lightship were being planned?
4.	If so, will construction of these vessels begin at an early date?
5.	Will tenders be called for such work?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. Lighthouse supply and buoy vessels for St. John's, Newfoundland, Parry Sound, Ontario, Quebec, P.Q.; and replacements for Sambro lightship and C.G.S. Detector.
4.	The timetable for construction will depend upon completion of plans and availability of funds. It is hoped to commence one of these vessels this spring.
5.	Decision will be taken in each case in accordance with circumstances that exist at the time.



C.G.S. &quot;WALTER E. FOSTER&quot;-DUTIES

Mr. Bell:: 1.	Is the C.G.S. Walter E. Foster presently carrying out in the gulf of St. Lawrence any of the duties it performed formerly in the bay of Fundy?
2.	If so, are the said duties considered to be of the same importance to navigation in both areas?
3.	Do these duties include icebreaking as performed by the C.G.S. Lady Grey1
4.	Was the C.G.S. Foster constructed for icebreaking?
5.	What and where are the other Department of Transport icebreakers at the present time?
6.	Have any complaints been received by the Department of Transport of faulty construction in the C.G.S. Foster?
7.	Have any complaints been received by the said department of difficulties encountered by the C.G.S. Foster in servicing lighthouses and buoys?
8.	Are any alterations being planned to the Foster in order to facilitate the servicing of buoys in the bay of Fundy?
9.	In the recent transfer of the C.G.S. Foster. were any crew members laid off? If so, how many?
10.	Were any crew members transferred with the change? If so, how many?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not specifically, but was designed to work in ice.
5.	The C.G.S. d'Iberville, Ernest Lapointe and N. B. McLean are icebreaking in the St. Lawrence river while the C.G.S. Saurel is stationed at Sydney, N.S., for icebreaking duties.
6.	No.
7.	No.
8.	No.
9.	(a) No; (b) answered by (a).
10.	As of February 24, 1955, 17 crew members of a total of 39 remained on board the C.G.S. Walter E. Foster, but this number will be decreased as crew members of the C.G.S. Lady Grey return from leave.



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT STEAMSHIPS

Mr. Bell:: 1.	What are the respective ages of the C.G.S. Franklin and the C.G.S. Dollardl
2.	Have either of them ever been condemned for any type of service or duty?
3.	What is the general condition of their plates?
4.	Will additional men be required in the return of the C.G.S. Dollard and C.G.S. Franklin to service in the bay of Fundy?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	C.G.S. Franklin, 36 years; C.G.S. Dollard, 42 years.
2.	No.
3.	The C.G.S. Franklin and C.G.S. Dollard are certificated for home trade class II voyages. These vessels are considered by steamship inspection service to be seaworthy for the service for which they have been certificated.
4.	No additional men will be required. Crew of C.G.S. Walter E. Foster will take over C.G.S. Franklin.



UNITED KINGDOM-CANADA DEBT

Mr. Thomas:: 1.	What is the interest rate on the debt owed by the government of the United Kingdom to the government of Canada?
2.	What are the provisions for the repayment of this debt?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	(a) Loan under the authority of the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942 presently outstanding in the amount of $120,000,000 is interest-free; (b) Loan under the authority of the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946, presently outstanding in the amount of $1,127,255,220.91 bears interest at the rate of 2 per cent per annum.
2.	(a) Quarterly repayments of $7,500,000
up to and including December 1,	1958;
(b) annual repayment of interest and principal of $37,710,255 up to and including December 31, 1999 and one repayment of interest and principal of $37,731,272.93 on December 31, 2000.

Questions
CANADIAN FARM LOANS, ALBERTA	GAGETOWN CAMP



LEGAL FEES

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many loans were applied for under the Canadian farm loan board in the province of Alberta during 1954?
2.	How many of these applications were given favourable consideration?
3.	What was the average amount of these loans?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Applications pending at December
31,	1953	 102
Applications received from January
1, 1954 to December 31, 1954..	455
2.	Applications approved for loan
January 1, 1954 to December
31,	1954	 288
Applications pending at December
31,	1954	 130
3.	$3,282 (loans approved).



PUBLIC BUILDING, KIPLING, SASK.

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	What steps have been taken by the government to construct a public building at Kipling, Saskatchewan, this year?
2.	Have tenders been called for this building?
3.	Is the building to be a joint post office and Hoyal Canadian Mounted Police barracks?
4.	Will it be a fireproof building?
5.	What is the estimated cost of the building?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Plans are being prepared and it is expected that public tenders will be called shortly.
2.	Tenders were called in July, 1954, but were cancelled due to a decision to change the size of the building.
3.	No, for postal accommodation only.
4.	No.
5.	$30,000 approximately.



FRANK, MARY, ANTE PRPICH

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Did Frank and Mary Prpich, or either of them, return to Canada from Zagreb, Croatia, Yugoslavia, subsequently to June 20, 1950?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Was their father, Ante Prpich, granted permission to accompany them back to Canada?
4.	If they are back, did they after landing renew their request for the readmission of their father?
5.	If permission was refused, on what grounds was this based?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 and 2. Frank and Mary Prpich returned to Canada from Zagreb, Yugoslavia, on March 21, 1951.
3.	No, because he was not a Canadian citizen and did not have Canadian domicile.
4.	Yes.
5.	An immigrant visa was refused Mr. Ante Prpich because he could not meet the immigration requirement.


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What amount has been paid up to February 1, 1955, by the federal government in legal fees in connection with the Gagetown military training area?
2.	What are the names of and the amounts paid to individual law firms?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	$91,027.55.
2.	Name	Amount
Brewer, R. A	$ 1,316.00
Dickson, D. M	 4,585.21
Duffie, Margaret, E	 3,531.00
Hogan, J. J	 6,029.66
Howie, J. Robert	 5,145.08
Kelly, S. Roy	 3,053.79
King, Dorothy Hughes	 3,081.02
Lawton, K. P	 3,447.39
Limerick, A.	McF	 26,366.88
Mackin, I. P	 3,848.62
McGinley, E.	F	 5,333.60
McNair, J. C	 4,929.16
Murray, A. R	 4,796.17
Neville, J. M	 3,136.81
Rouse, D. G	 2,478.82
Warner, J. E	 6,132.22
Whelley, C. F	 3,816.12



MENTAL HEALTH

Mr. MacDougall:: 1.	In recent years has there been any improvement in the mental health situation in Canada?
2.	Has there been any increase in government expenditures on mental health in recent years?


Mr. Marlin:: 1. Yes. The program against mental illness in Canada is showing heartening results which gives grounds for anticipating increased future improvement. Some of the statistics are indicative of this trend. For instance the time required to treat certain illnesses in Canadian mental hospitals has decreased. For patients of all diagnoses discharged from these hospitals in 1948 the average duration of treatment was 18 months. By 1953 the period of treatment required for all diagnoses was reduced to just under 10 months. For schizophrenia, which constitutes one of the largest single groups of mental illness, the average stay in hospital was 24 months in 1948; this was decreased by 1953 to an average of just under 14 months.
The federal mental health grant has had a major impact on the mental health program of Canada. There has been a very sharp increase in the number of treating personnel available to the mental health field and a very rapid extension of the services available for the treatment and prevention of mental illness.

Orders for Returns
Our improved health education program is bringing more people to hospital for earlier treatment. The emphasis on prevention of serious mental illness and its increasing acceptance by the general public is a most encouraging sign. Attitudes towards mental illness are changing for the better and the public have come to know that Canadian mental hospitals compare most favourably with similar facilities in the United States and other countries. Indicative of this trend is the fact that 20 per cent of all new admissions in 1953 were voluntary, whereas in 1943 this figure was only 5 per cent. It is impossible to measure the benefits of the mental health movement which has permeated all strata of Canadian society today.
2. Yes. The awareness that this improvement can only be maintained through increasing expenditures is shown by the willingness of all levels of government to provide for mental health expenditures. There has been a threefold increase in the ten-year period from 1943 to 1953 in so far as Canadian mental hospitals are concerned. Operating costs for mental health hospitals in 1953-54 were $5 million more than in the previous year. Community mental health clinics, too, represent a tremendous investment in the preventive mental health program, increasing as they have in the past five years from 17 to more than 100.



BROADCAST RECORDINGS AND FILMS


Mr. Beaudry:: 1.	What was the total amount of sales tax collected by the Department of National Revenue in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954, on (a) production of recordings or magnetic tapes used for (i) transcribed commercial radio programs or transcribed commercial announcements; (ii) for delayed broadcasts; (b) production of films used for commercial television program broadcasts or commercial televised announcements; (c) production of kinescopes for television broadcast retransmission?
2.	What share of this sales tax in each year was related to (a) artists' fees; (b) mechanical and material costs; (c) direction, creation and supervision?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No segregation of sales tax collections according to articles is made, hence information is not available.
2.	For the reason given above, no information available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Churchill:: 1. How many officers and other ranks of the Canadian army and of the Royal Canadian Air Force are now in: (a) the United Kingdom; (b) Europe; (c) Korea and adjacent areas?

2.	How many in the above categories are: (a) single; (b) married?
3.	How many (a) wives; (b) children, of these officers and other ranks are in (i) the United Kingdom; (ii) Europe; (iii) Korean theatre?
4.	What are the corresponding figures for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954?
5.	How many children per family are there in the above categories?
6.	How many of these children are enrolled in schools operated at the expense of the Canadian government and in what countries?
7.	How many teachers are employed in these schools, (a) Canadians; (b) others?
8.	What grades are provided and the enrolment in each?
9.	What is the total cost of the educational program for the children of Canadian servicemen in the United Kingdom and in Europe under the headings of: (a) capital cost for buildings; (b) yearly maintenance; (c) salaries of teachers and other staff?


HEART DISEASES, ETC.
Mr. Campbell:: 1.	How many deaths were there in Canada, from cardio-vascular diseases, tuberculosis and cancer, during 1953 and 1954?
2.	Is heart disease increasing every year, and far outstripping all other diseases as the nation's big killer?


Mr. Dickey:: Return tabled.
WILLIAM HEAD, B.C., QUARANTINE STATION Mr. Pearkes:
1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare maintain a quarantine station at William Head, British Columbia?
2.	If so, how many patients have been admitted to this station each year since 1940?
3.	For what periods have these patients, if any, been retained at this station?
4.	What has been the size of the staff, permanent and temporary, maintained at this station during the period 1940 to January 1, 1955?
5.	What salaries have been paid to this staff?
6.	What funds have been included in the estimates each year from 1940 for the maintenance of this station?
7.	How much money has been spent on the maintenance of this station each year since 1940?


ARMED FORCES-STRENGTH
Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What was the strength at the last date for which figures are available of (a) navy; (b) army; (c) air force?
2.	How many men were recruited during the previous 12 months in each service?
3.	How many men were discharged during the previous 12 months in each service?
4.	What numbers were discharged for each of the
following reasons in each service:	(a) physical
disabilities; (b) mental or emotional instability;
(c)	desertion; (d) other reasons?
ARMED FORCES-RECRUITING Mr. Harkness:
1.	What was the total cost of recruiting for each of the three armed services for the last 12 months for which figures are available?
2.	What is the break-down of these costs under
the following headings:	(a) advertising:	(b)
recruiting centres and offices; (c) travelling teams;
(d)	other costs?


HEALTH GRANTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Trainor:: 1.	What amounts were included in the estimates for the last fiscal year in respect of health grants, by provinces?
2.	What amounts were actually spent in each province?
3.	What amounts were paid by the federal government in respect of retarded children in each province?



MAIL SERVICE CHANGES, ALBERTA

Mr. Hansell:: What changes in mail services will be made for the delivery of mail to the following Alberta post offices after the change in train schedules on the Aldersyde, Lethbridge branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, commencing April 24: Blackie, Brant, Ensign, Vulcan, Champion, Carmangay, Barons, Lomond, Milo, Armada, Queenstown, Mossleigh, Arrowwood?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. McWilliam:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the federal Department of Public Works and the department of public works of the province of New Brunswick in connection with the calling and awarding of tenders for the construction of the Cole's island bridges, in the province of New Brunswick, as part of the trans-Canada highway.


Robert Henry Winters: Subject to the usual reservation about obtaining permission from the province.



INDIAN AFFAIRS HEADQUARTERS, STONY RAPIDS, SASK.

Mr. Bryson:: For a copy of all correspondence which passed between the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration at Ottawa or any officials thereof and officials of the Indian affairs branch at Stony Rapids, Saskatchewan, with regard to protests or complaints arising out of the closing of the Indian affairs headquarters at Stony Rapids, between June 18 and July 16, 1954.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the minister discussed this matter with me. On that basis I am prepared to drop this particular motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion withdrawn.



IMMIGRATION-LANDING APPLICATION FORMS

Mrs. Fairclough:: For one specimen copy of each of the various landing application forms which immigrants seeking admission to Canada were required to complete, which were authorized and/or used by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and/or its predecessors at any time in the period from January 1, 1945 to December 31, 1954 inclusive.
Motions for Papers


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I, with leave, Mr. Speaker, comply with that motion immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: By consent I understand the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is now reverting to motions in order to table the answer to this motion.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS LAY-OFFS

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the minister or Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways relative to a question placed on the order paper in the name of the mover of this matter on the 28th January last, the purpose of which was to ascertain the number of section and maintenance men, office staffs, etc., who have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways during the periods particularly set forth in the said question.


Mr. Marler:: Mr. Speaker, by this motion the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asks that the house order the production of all correspondence between the minister or the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways relative to a question which the hon. member placed on the order paper on January 28 last, the purpose of which was to ascertain the number of section and maintenance men, office staffs, etc., who have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways during certain periods. 1 can only repeat what I said a few days ago upon another motion introduced by the same hon. member, namely that correspondence between the minister or officials of the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways is privileged and has always been so regarded I think by this house. For that reason I think that an order for its production ought not to be voted by the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order affecting the privileges of the house. In answer to my hon. friend I would point out that this is not an endeavour to secure information with regard to internal management or correspondence of an interdepartmental character. When the question was asked the minister took the stand that the information was not readily procurable when he answered on February 21 and stated as follows, as reported at page 1326 of Hansard:
This is another question which cannot be answered completely without the assignment of a special staff. Here again, the information would have to be assembled at the 42 divisions of the company, and would then have to be consolidated.
I point out, sir, that what I am trying to do is to ascertain not a matter of internal management because the minister has no jurisdiction in any way over the railway except to report to parliament. At least that

Motions for Papers
is the contention he has made in the past. What I am trying to find out is whether the minister has properly placed the matter before the railway company so that information which it would not be difficult to ascertain could be ascertained, namely the number of lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways. I am trying to find out whether the matter has in fact been placed before the company and whether the company is refusing to give information which parliament has a right to ask.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, may I say quite frankly that I thought the motion had some such implication as my hon. friend suggests; but it seems to me that when I answered the question orally the other day I told him that I was giving the information which I had obtained from the Canadian National Railways and I observe that in effect this motion asks for the production of the correspondence which I exchanged with the president of the Canadian National Railways in order to obtain the answer to my hon. friend's question. The purpose of this motion seems to be to verify whether the answer I gave to the house is in conformity with the information I obtained from the president of the railway. I may say that I was somewhat unwilling to think that was the intention of the hon. member but what he has said leads me to believe that my inference was correct. However, I do not raise that question in objecting to the motion. I think that the correspondence between the minister and the president of the Canadian National Railways is privileged. It has been so held in the past by this house, and I invoke that fact as an argument against the adoption of the motion.


Mr. Fulton:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would place before you and before the house the thought that this correspondence referred to by the minister relates to information sought by the house. It is therefore a matter in which the House of Commons, I submit, has a definite interest. As the hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out, the purpose of this motion is not to seek details of the internal management but to seek details as to the correspondence which passed between the minister and the president of the railway with regard to information requested by a member of this House of Commons. As such I submit that it is perfectly within the rights of this house to require production of that correspondence because it is correspondence concerning matters raised in the House of Commons itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question or make a suggestion? A few days ago, in answering
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
the question referred to and similar questions of mine, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) said that he was prepared to try to get such information as was available that might meet the questions we were asking at least in part. I wonder whether this matter could not be left standing until the minister has given us that information?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would have no objection, but I am trying to get through that curtain of secrecy and I think the matter should be disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made the matter a question of order. I might say that there are two points at issue. One is one which is of a general character which is being invoked not only when there are motions for the production of papers relating to C.N.R. management or C.N.R. affairs but whenever it concerns correspondence between the minister and his officials, whether they be officials of the C.N.R. or officials of his own department. That, I think, will be agreed upon by the house as being an attitude which has always been taken by ministers and recognized as being the only one they can take. Bourinot, fourth edition, at page 251 says:
The practice of asking for reports from officers, addressed to particular departments of the executive government, is considered to be open to serious objection.
That has been the practice of ministers in the house ever since there has been an executive. On that particular point I do not think the hon. member can insist. What he has asked for is a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the minister or Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways respecting certain affairs. Maybe the minister, in order to get his information, did not write anything. Maybe he just telephoned. Whatever exchange took place between the minister and some other person with respect to this particular matter is, as the minister has said, privileged. If there are any documents, they are privileged documents and they are not to be asked for in the house. That has been the practice followed and accepted by the house.
The other point has reference to the last remark of the hon. member who wants to peek through the curtain of secrecy, as he calls it. That is a debatable point between the opposition and the government as to whether the present government should follow, with respect to C.N.R. affairs and information pertaining to them, the same attitude followed in the past by other governments occupying the treasury benches. The only way I can deal with the matter from the point of view of order is to inform the hon, member that the practice of governments

since 1921 of giving this type of reply to similar questions or notices of motions for production of papers placed on the order paper has had an effect on the Chair. The effect it has had has been rather extreme in certain cases, and I will only quote one ruling given in the session of 1932-33 which is to be found at page 694 of Hansard of October 31, 1932. Mr. Desrochers moved a motion for production of papers in the following terms:
For a copy of all documents, letters and protests, in the possession of the Canadian National Railways with respect to mile post 35, Quebec-Chicoutimi division since 1917.
Mr. Speaker said:
The government have declined to supply similar information, on the ground that it is entirely for the railway company, therefore this resolution is out of order.
I could quote several rulings by my predecessors to the same effect. I wish that hon. members might find a way of further arguing, if they so wish, whether the policy followed by the government with respect to these matters is the right one. I suggest that perhaps Mr. King did in 1921 when he moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply. In that debate he said that it was the undoubted right of parliament to have all this information pertaining to the C.N.R. Mr. King's amendment is to be found at page 1178 of Hansard of March 22, 1921, and is in these words:
Subject to the reservation that in exceptional cases there may be documents of a confidential character which, in the public interest, may properly be withheld from publication, the house declares that it is the undoubted right of parliament to demand and receive copies of all reports, accounts, correspondence and papers in relation to the management of every department of the public service including the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, whether operating directly under the control of the department or under corporate form.
A debate ensued, and Mr. Meighen's position is to be found at page 1180. What came out of this debate was the establishment of a committee, a practice which has been followed ever since. Mr. King suggested at page 1180 that there were three methods by which information pertaining to the C.N.R. could be supplied to the house. He said:
It is customary in this house to have information given in answer to questions addressed to the ministry, or on motions for the production of papers; and sometimes the information is given through special committees.
Before the debate on the amendment to the motion to go into supply terminated, there was a motion by the government for the creation of a committee on railways and shipping. Hon. members will find the order of reference of the first committee established to examine the affairs of the C.N.R. at page
Motions for Papers
164 of the Journals of 1921, volume 58. I quote:
And the question being put on the main motion as amended, as follows:
That a select standing committee on national railways and shipping be appointed for the present session, and be instructed to inquire into the following question:
1.	What information as to operations of Canadian National Railways and shipping as conducted by the board of directors and management should, in the public interest, be brought down in parliament on question, motion for production of papers, or otherwise,
2.	When, by what method, and under what conditions, if any, should such information be given, regard being had for the necessity of securing to parliament and the public all facts requisite for the determination of policy, including finance, and to the board of directors the best possible conditions for efficiency of management,
3.	What system of auditing should be adopted, and what extent of detail should be given in the annual report,
4.	What if any improvement could be made in the general scheme of management,
5.	Whether and for what purposes the said committee should be continued, and that for the above purposes and for such other purposes as the committee deem in the public interest there be referred to said committee the annual report of the board of directors and that the said committee have power to examine witnesses under oath, to send for papers, persons, and records and to report from time to time.
This committee was the father of all the committees on railways and government-owned shipping since that time. As I said, I deal with these matters merely because, as I have indicated, the practice adopted on this very question in 1921 after several debates has resulted in Mr. Speaker of the day and his successors intervening in the fashion which I have indicated to say that the matter is not in order and to remove a motion for production of papers completely from the order paper without even giving a chance for members to ask for a protest vote.
As I say, it is a debatable point whether the practice of answering questions pertaining to C.N.R. affairs should be continued by way of a committee or otherwise. I am not going to say anything about that, but as far as the merit of the answer given today by the minister is concerned, 1 will have to decide that such an answer has been found proper on similar occasions in respect of all such matters, and therefore I cannot rule in the manner which the hon. member for Prince Albert would like me to do at this moment. The motion is dropped.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the Leader of the Opposition asked me if I had
1552	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry any comments to make to the house in regard to the positive statement in Sunday's edition of the New York Times that the Canadian Pacific Railway planned to call its new transcontinental train the "Royal Canadian", but that the government objected to this and as a result part of the name, "Royal", has been dropped. I do not wish to make any comments but merely to state the facts, which are quite simple.
Prior to the publication of this statement, no member of the government had heard anything at all about the plans to call a C.P.R. train the "Royal Canadian". When I made inquiries last week in that regard I was informed that what had happened was this. The under-secretary of state noticed an item in the newspapers sometime last December about a new transcontinental passenger train which the Canadian Pacific proposed to put into service under the name the "Royal Canadian". As there had been no communication with the department about this he wrote to Mr. N. R. Crump, vicepresident of the Canadian Pacific, on December 31 last inquiring as to whether the Canadian Pacific had obtained permission to use that name. A few days later he was informed by telephone that the general solicitor of the Canadian Pacific would come to see him at an early date to discuss this question with him. The general solicitor did come to see him and contended that no permission was required to use that name. The under-secretary expressed the view that it could not be used without permission and they discussed the proper interpretation of section 9 of the Trade Marks Act. The language of that section is, in part, as follows:
(1) No person shall adopt In connection with a business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for
(d) any word or symbol likely to lead to the belief that the wares or services in association with which it is used have received or are produced, sold or performed under royal, vice-regal or governmental patronage, approval or authority.
Subsection 2 provides:
Nothing in this section prevents the use as a trade mark or otherwise, in connection with a business, of any mark described in subsection (1) with the consent of Her Majesty or such other person, society, authority or organization as may be considered to have been intended to be protected by this section.
The general solicitor maintained his view on the legal aspect of the problem but indicated that it would be for the administrative authorities of the company to decide as a matter of policy what they would do.
On January 20, 1955, the general solicitor wrote to the under-secretary of state that after consideration the management had informed him that because of the time element


for releases and the inability to bring the matter to a conclusion quickly they would abandon the use of the word "royal" in regard to the train and simply call it "The Canadian".


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government has any objection to the use of this name by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The government has no objection, but the government feels that every request for such use should be submitted for the pleasure of Her Majesty, and has taken the position that it does not give constitutional advice but submits the matter for the pleasure of Her Majesty. That has been the practice since the war.
There were quite a few applications during the war for the use of the word "royal" and his late majesty deferred consideration until after the war. There was then a communication addressed to the governor general that of the seven that had been submitted only one would be approved; that it was not likely that the institutions which had been allowed to use the word "royal" would disappear and therefore it was felt at the palace that greater care should be taken to avoid increasing unduly the number of institutions that would be given permission to use the word "royal". There was the comment that the more jealously it was guarded the greater value it would retain.
It is because of that that in many cases the attention of those who wanted to use the word has been called to that attitude and the government does not arrogate to itself any right to say that the word shall not be used. When there is an application it is submitted for Her Majesty's pleasure as being, not only in theory but in fact, the personal prerogative of the sovereign.


Howard Charles Green: I take it from the Prime Minister's remarks that it is clear that the government has no objection or will offer no objection to the use of this name by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The government would offer no objection. I am not trying to defend the attitude of the under-secretary of state, but it was to his knowledge that a little over a year ago another transportation company had said that it wanted to use the name "Royal Canadian" for one of its services. The matter was discussed with those who put it forward. At that time it did not come before the cabinet but the view of the ministers concerned was that it would be unwise to ask for that permission and the matter was dropped.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has not yet made it clear as to what stand the government would take. Will it now object to the use of this word by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or will it have no objection?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter has never come up for consideration by the government. There never was any request to the government to submit an application from the company to Her Majesty. The only correspondence is made up of the two letters to which I have referred, the last one of which says that as it could not be disposed of quickly the management had decided to abandon the project of securing that name for its train.
This is not something that arises because the government has any objection to the use of the word "royal"; it is because of the attitude that has been taken that it could not be authorized without the permission of the sovereign. I think the language used is that it should be restricted to institutions having as essential qualifications eminence, long standing and secure financial position and devoted to national, charitable or scientific objects. Many organizations throughout the British Empire could justly put forward such claims and in the future they could not be regarded as being in the position where this would be sufficient to justify recognition.
The Trade Marks Act clearly indicates that in the view of parliament this provision was put there for the protection of certain institutions, not because there was any objection to the use of the word. It was felt that it should be protected presumably in the interests of the dignity of the monarchial institution.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently some ministers of the crown did consider this question and decided unfavourably. Is the government now willing to consent to the use of this name by the company?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has no right to consent to the use of this word.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government willing to recommend to the crown that the company be permitted to use it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The position taken by the government is that it makes no recommendation; if it finds that it is something entirely unworthy of consideration by the sovereign it refuses to put it forward. If it finds that it is something that should be considered, as it did find in the case of the Winnipeg ballet, it puts it forward without recommendation but for the pleasure of Her Majesty.


Howard Charles Green: Would the government foe willing to put forward the recommendation without any objection thereto?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there is an application from the Canadian Pacific Railway it will be considered. Until there is such application I will not make a definite answer.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of the discussion we had a few moments ago. Does the Prime Minister not consider that a transcontinental train would be worthy to have the word "royal"?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the Prime Minister is required at any time to give, in his official capacity, an opinion upon that point, it will receive consideration. I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions in the house on the point.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What commitments does Canada have toward Formosa arising out of membership in the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question, which is an important one and somewhat more complicated than it otherwise would be because of the difference of views over the legal status of Formosa. But I am glad to put the viewpoint of the government on record in regard -to this matter, as follows:
As the United Nations has taken no action regarding Formosa we have no commitments to take any action either. Any general obligations arising out of membership in the United Nations would arise only when the United Nations took some action in accordance with the provisions of the charter and called upon members to give assistance or to co-operate.
The question of hostilities in -the area of certain islands off the coast of the mainland of China is on the agenda of the security council. Because of the refusal of the Peking government to send a representative to the security council to discuss this question the council has deferred discussion pending further examination of the problem through diplomatic channels. However, if the security council should decide -to take some action under chapter VI relating to the pacific settlement of disputes, and if it should request

Inquiries of the Ministry any United Nations member government to give assistance by way of good offices or something of that kind, then there would be a moral obligation for us to give that request sympathetic consideration.
There has been no suggestion that the security council should take any action under chapter VII relating to action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression, and I would hope that before any suggestion of this kind is made every avenue for peaceful settlement of the disturbed situation in the Formosa strait will be fully explored.


PIPE LINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister regarding Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Is consideration now being given, with the knowledge and consent of the government, by the industrial development bank to making a loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All I can say at this time is that there has been a request for some assistance in connection with a transcontinental pipe line, and the matter is under consideration. But to my knowledge no decision has been reached.


John George Diefenbaker: But that is not the point of the question I asked. Has the industrial development bank been approached by the government with the suggestion that a loan might be given to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in order to allow it to finance the proposition?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think to that question the answer would have to be in the negative. We know that there have been discussions between representatives of the company and the industrial development bank looking to securing full information about the situation as it exists at the present time. But there has been no suggestion by the government that the industrial development bank should make a loan to the company.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. 
Cote) or, in his absence, the minister acting on his behalf. Is the minister aware that the first post office in western Canada was opened exactly 100 years ago today? Will he extend to the Postmaster General an invitation to attend at the celebration of this historic event at Winnipeg in the near future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been made aware that the Manitoba historical society discovered that this was the first post office in western Canada. Of course it could not have been a Canadian post office because at that time Manitoba was not part of Canada. However, I would like to know what kind of postage stamps they used, and if the hon. member could supply me with some, because I could make good use of them.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, of which I gave notice last Friday. Because of the great hardship which the present regulations bring to bear upon the wives and children of servicemen under the age of 21, will the government consider changing the regulations so as to allow the wives of servicemen under 21 to receive separation and marriage allowances in the same manner as the wives of servicemen of 21 years and over receive them at the present time?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member sent his question to me on Friday, it only reached me shortly before I came to the house today, due to the fact that I have been out of the city. However, I will take the hon. member's question as notice.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnet! (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), I should like to ask a question of his parliamentary assistant. Are press reports correct that the Marwell Construction Company has been awarded a contract to build 100 houses at Comox, British Columbia? If they are correct, does the company plan to import these houses in a prefabricated or pre-cut form?
John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I believe, from the nature of the hon. member's question, that it is not a matter that would come under the Department of Defence Production.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I could answer this question, Mr. Speaker, because it does come within the jurisdiction of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and I happen to have here a note on the subject because the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) left it with me. The hon. member is correct. There has been a contract awarded to Marwell Construction Company of Vancouver. The houses are to be prefabricated and will be shipped to the island and put together there.


Mr. Barnett:: Do I understand that these houses are to be imported into Canada in prefabricated form, from outside of Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: The information I have before me does not indicate where they are to be prefabricated. I will obtain that information and let the hon. member know.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The matter is of some concern to the people out there.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) if he is aware that there are a number of carpenters unemployed on Vancouver island who would be quite capable of constructing the houses at Comox.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received from the Humber valley conservation authority additional information which he requested at the time of the presentation to him of the authority's original brief?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question two weeks ago in the affirmative. And I answered another question last week-last Thursday or Friday- saying that I have received the supplementary briefs, that they are still under consideration and that, because of the economic and technical aspects involved, it would take some time before I could reach a decision.
New Westminster Harbour Commission NEW WESTMINSTER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS



MEASURE AUTHORIZING LOANS OF $200,000 BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

George Carlyle Marler: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a bill respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners to authorize the Minister of Finance to make total loans of $200,000 to the corporation for the purposes mentioned in the said bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation from the minister?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman, this resolution seeks to introduce a very simple bill which I am sure will commend itself to the committee. As hon. members know, particularly those from the west coast, an English syndicate headed by the estate of the Duke of Westminster has acquired Annacis island in the harbour of New Westminster, British Columbia, and proposes extensive development of the island for industrial establishments. The Department of Transport has been advised the syndicate contemplates an initial expenditure of approximately $4 million to $6 million, which might go up to $100 million with the years, for erection of factories, construction of roads, drainage, etc., for some 200 industrial establishments.
Over the past several months discussions have taken place between the syndicate, the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works, and the New Westminster harbour commissioners respecting a request by the developers that a causeway be erected to provide access to Annacis island for both rail and highway traffic. The syndicate representatives were informed the Department of Public Works would not approve of a causeway, which would completely close Annacis channel, because such a structure would increase the danger of flooding, but would be prepared to approve a structure part causeway and part trestle bridge.
It is the expectation of the commissioners that industrial development of Annacis island will serve to effect a material increase in harbour traffic. Furthermore, the proposed structure would provide access to Robson island which lies adjacent to Annacis island and is owned by the commissioners.
In order to permit the commissioners to begin construction of the bridge and causeway, their bylaw No. 159 was approved by
1556	HOUSE OF
New Westminster Harbour Commission order in council P. C. 1954-1454 dated September 22,	1954. They were thus given
authority to draw upon their reserve account up to $200,000 pending the introduction of the loan bill; such moneys to be repaid to the account upon receipt by the commissioners of the moneys raised by the proposed bill.


Mr. Hahn:: I was very pleased to hear the statement of the parliamentary assitant in respect of this matter. This project on Anna-cis island is a very important one to my riding, and a recognition of it by the government makes the people of New Westminster happy. The project itself, as the parliamentary assistant indicated, is one of considerable magnitude. While the expenditure to date has possibly been within the $4 million mark, we have every indication that it will run into many hundreds of millions of dollars before it is completed. The fact that the Duke of Westminster saw fit to find a location in the riding of New Westminster makes us wonder why he should choose that location. Anyone who is familiar with the region recognizes that New Westminster harbour is the third largest harbour in Canada.
I understand that Annacis island is similar to Tilbury island, on which the Duke of Westminster had his original project in Britain. The objective is to industrialize completely the island. The inhabitants who will work on the island will of necessity live in the region that surrounds the area, and Annacis island might well be the area in which the people of Burnaby, Coquitlam, New Westminster, Surrey and Delta will work. The island itself is in the Delta municipality, but it is a part of the New Westminster riding. I can assure the government that everyone in the surrounding area is very happy to see this move.
It is true that a causeway between the points mentioned is very much required. I understand it is practically ready to be opened. It is a place in which the dredging silt can be placed, and so has helped the Department of Public Works to a degree.
In respect to the New Westminster harbour board itself and its commissioners, there is only one point that I should like to bring to the minister's attention at this time. During the past several weeks and months, the harbour has lost considerable shipping by reason of the fact that there has not been enough co-operation or co-ordination of effort between the Department of Public Works and the harbour commissioners in the past as to where the dredging should be done. I know that dredging comes under the Department of Public Works, but the two are so closely connected, and the one is so dependent on the 

other, that I thought I should seize this opportunity to draw it to the minister's attention.
As late as February 11 of this year the Pacific ship La Salle was kept at the Pacific coast terminal for three additional hours. She was held on a sand bar at the terminal because sufficient water was not available. We can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing a harbour, as this government has seen fit to do, but unless we get a little more co-operation and co-ordination of effort between the Department of Public Works and this body that is set up under corporate law to look after the harbour, I would say that the money is not always well spent in the circumstances.
The very fact that the Searle Grain Company has a huge terminal there, which is capable of handling millions of bushels of grain, which is of particular interest to the farmers from the prairies, and the fact that the tonnage of grain shipments is about 50 per cent of what it was last year because the vessel owners refused to bring their boats into the harbour, owing to their getting tied up in the river, indicate that we need more co-operation and co-ordination of effort between the Department of Public Works and the harbour board.
I am both happy and pleased that the government is again willing to invest money in the harbour. The people of New Westminster and the various boards associated therewith are doubtless also happy and thankful to the government for showing its willingness to do so.
At this time I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport the necessity for closer co-operation between the two departments which I mentioned earlier.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the corporation which is seeking this loan of $200,000 was set up in 1913 under the name of the New Westminster harbour commissioners. In the intervening years that corporation has done excellent work. As the member for New Westminster has said, the port is now one of the leading ports of Canada. That, of course, is what one would expect from the city of New Westminster because the citizens of that city have a wonderful community spirit which has been displayed in many different fields down through the years. Their fine spirit has been evident not only in the development of their own port but also in sports and in many other lines of activity. In fact, New Westminster was the original capital of the old colony of British Columbia before that colony and Vancouver island

were joined to become the colony of British Columbia and eventually the province of British Columbia. New Westminster has a very proud history.
From time to time the corporation has come to the dominion government for loans. For example, in 1931 a statute was passed providing for a loan of $300,000. Reference to this will be found in chapter 40 of the statutes for that year. In 1952 an application was made for a further loan of $1,250,000 and provision for this was made by chapter 10 of the statutes for that year.


Mr. Mclvor:: Were the loans paid back?


Howard Charles Green: I trust that the parliamentary assistant will be able to tell the committee today the balance which remains unpaid on these two or on any other loans.
In 1952 the bill was sent for study to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I think that was a very wise course to follow. The members of that committee were able to hear evidence from the chairman of the corporation and also from the alderman of the city of New Westminster who was chairman of the committee set up by the council to deal with the harbour. I hope that the Minister of Transport will follow a similar course in respect to this bill. It would be my hope that once it has been given second reading he will refer it to the standing committee I have mentioned.
The purpose for which the money now being sought will be used seems to me to be praiseworthy. There is a tremendous development under way at Annacis island. I believe that the New Westminster harbour commissioners and also the members of the city council of New Westminster are to be commended for the way in which they are dealing with this potential development.
I would ask the minister or his assistant to give us an assurance that when the bill has had a second reading it will be referred to the committee for study. I see no reason why it should be opposed. I think probably the bill has great merit. I do suggest, however, that this would be a good course to follow in connection with this bill. I would like to see it referred to the committee under whose jurisdiction such matters normally come.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I am extremely happy to see that this development which has been under discussion for several years is now being given encouragement by the Department of Transport and that a loan will be made to the corporation for the purpose of building a trestle to join Annacis island with the mainland.
New Westminster Harbour Commission
I rise now because I recall that my colleague, the former member for New Westminster, had a very great interest in this development and took a leading part in interesting the company headed by the Duke of Westminster. The hon. member spent about two weeks in Ottawa and on the west coast with the company's representatives familiarizing them with the area concerned and with the government departments with which it was necessary to deal.
I believe that the fact that this matter is now coming to a head is largely due to his initiative. I am sure he would not wish me to bring this to the attention of the house because the hon. member took very little part in the debates and had no wish at any time to draw notice to his action. However, I do feel it is a very great tribute to him that this arrangement is now being made. As I said before, I am very happy to see this great development coming about. In the early stages of discussion it was indicated that the development might be as much as $150 million. I am happy to support the resolution and I am convinced that this feeling is shared by all the hon. members from British Columbia.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I should like to express my thanks to the hon. members who have taken part in this debate for their appreciation of this resolution.
Before I answer the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, may I slate that there has never been any lack of co-operation between our department, the New Westminster commissioners and the Department of Public Works with regard to the dredging problem, as the hon. member for New Westminster apparently implied in his remarks. The representations made by both the commissioners and the representatives of the English syndicate have been carefully studied by both our department and the Department of Public Works. It has been the considered opinion of the engineers of the Department of Public Works that no extensive dredging operations were warranted owing to the fact that there was a strong possibility that these dredging operations would be useless owing to silting. I am sure that the matter is constantly under consideration by those concerned and that if the situation changes they will take the necessary steps.
As to the previous loans authorized in connection with the New Westminster harbour, I must state that there were three such loans. There was one in 1931, authorized by chapter 40 of the statutes of 1931-and referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra- in the amount of $274,537.23. There was another one authorized under chapter 10 of the statutes of 1948 in the amount of $700,000..
1558	HOUSE OF
New Westminster Harbour Commission Then there was a large one authorized in 1952 in the amount of $1,250,000. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked me to tell the committee whether or not these loans had been repaid in part or in full. I must say that the last loan, the one amounting to $1,250,000 authorized in 1952, has not as yet been totally spent. The work is still in progress. Although the construction is in an advanced stage, I am told that the dock facility which this loan was to provide is not yet complete.
As to the previous loans, I am in a position to tell this committee that the commissioners have so far faithfully met the interest charges but that no repayments have been made on these loans.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant did not deal with my suggestion that, when the bill receives second reading, it be referred to a committee.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I omitted to deal with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra with regard to the possibility of sending this bill to the standing committee. Though his suggestion will receive careful consideration, I must say that I see no purpose in doing this, since this is a simple bill and also since part of the money has already been spent. As the hon. member knows, this causeway and this trestle bridge are being constructed, the $200,000 sought in this bill is being spent, and the New Westminster commissioners have been authorized to draw that money from the reserve account. As I said, the work is at present in progress. However, as I indicated, the hon. member's suggestion will receive every consideration.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport are both in the house at the moment. I am somewhat surprised at the stand taken on behalf of the government by the parliamentary assistant, namely that he will not undertake that the bill which is to follow this resolution will be referred to a standing committee of the house.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I said that we will give consideration to that suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: The ministers must know-and certainly the Minister of Finance knows- that a bill of this type should be studied by one or other of the standing committees. That is what has been done in the past. We did it in 1952 with good results. Then it was possible to call in the chairman of this harbour commission and at that time we


also had the alderman from the city of New Westminster who was responsible for the harbour, and we obtained from them the whole picture. It is utterly impossible to get a similar picture from the minister or his parliamentary assistant here in the house; and there cannot be an efficient review of this situation. When parliament is asked to vote money as has been done here-and this is the fourth time apparently when parliament has been asked to vote money- surely it is not too much trouble for the government to have a bill of that kind sent to the committee for study rather than simply saying arbitrarily here in the house: "You cannot have a committee; we are going to put this bill through and that is all there is to it".
No one who has spoken has questioned the merit of the bill. I am just as anxious as is anybody else to see the port of New Westminster developed. But surely the businesslike way in which to deal with legislation of this type is to have it considered by a committee. The bill to be introduced is close to being a private bill; it is a bill dealing with one port. I submit that bills of that kind should be studied by a committee, especially in a case where this same committee has already dealt with a bill from the same corporation within the last three years. The members of that committee are therefore well aware of this set-up and are able to go into the merits of this particular proposal. Instead of that procedure, we are apparently going to be asked to pass a loan of $250,000 without being given the opportunity to deal with it in a committee. I should like to hear the views of the Minister of Transport himself with regard to this suggestion.


Mr. Harris:: If I may substitute for a
moment, at the request of the Minister of Transport, I should like to say this. I of course would be happy to have any expenditure or lending of money scrutinized by any committee; but this seems to be a relatively small amount, especially having in mind that, as my hon. friend has said, much larger sums have been voted for this purpose after thorough study.


Howard Charles Green: Not for this purpose. The
other money was not voted for this purpose.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not suppose the members from British Columbia will find it difficult to appreciate the significance of this comparatively small bill. I thought the reasons advanced by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport were quite sound. But he said in his remarks that consideration would be given to the request made for a study by a committee, and such consideration will be given.

New Westminster Harbour Commission


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I just be allowed
to say a word. I suppose we cannot expect the minister to pay too much attention to $200,000 when we have been told or have been led to believe that a million does not mean much. I am wondering whether in fact the government which has shown such great concern for delegation to committees and which has expressed at some length the great advantage which accrues from that procedure would not meet this request. In view of the small amount of time that would be required, even for an amount which, as the minister says, is not large in relation to the larger amounts but nevertheless which is itself a substantial one, I am wondering whether it is not a reasonable request and whether there has been any real answer worthy of the name given to the request.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood could not read into anything I said a suggestion that $200,000 was a small amount. Certainly if the request had not been a reasonable one we would not have promised consideration.


Frederick George Hahn: 
Howard Charles Green: In connection with the remarks of the Minister of Finance, I should like to point out that this is not the same development that was considered by the committee in 1952. The money now being authorized is for an entirely different purpose, a new purpose. As a matter of fact, it is for a purpose which may require further money in the years that lie ahead. That is another reason
1560	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act why a committee should go into the question. It will be impossible to cross-examine the chairman of the corporation unless the bill is sent to a committee. That is one of the reasons why it is so important to have consideration given by a committee. We can then find out from him exactly what they have in mind and can perhaps clear up some of the questions that have been raised in the debate today. I do not intend to go any further. I urge again that consideration be given to having the bill referred to a committee after second reading.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Marler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 187, respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act to extend the benefits of the act to certain persons in the service of Her Majesty who are not paid a direct wage or salary and to persons locally engaged outside of Canada; to provide for additional benefits where an employee dies as the result of an accident while absent on duty from^ his usual place of employment; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, the terms of the resolution cover the situation quite thoroughly in a general way. I have some explanatory notes that I am prepared to give in a more particular way, and I am in the hands of the committee whether I should do it on the resolution or on second reading.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the committee would like to hear the minister's explanatory notes now.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, the particular act to be amended by the bill founded on the resolution is one that goes back in the history of our country quite a long time, away back to 1918 in fact. Of course it applies only to persons who come within the service of the federal government. The Government Employees Compensation Act provides for payment of compensation to civil employees of the
[Mr. Green.)

federal government, and to employees of boards, commissions and corporations established to act as agencies of the crown which are brought within the scope of the act by the governor in council, in cases of injury or death sustained in the course of, and arising out of, employment.
At present there are approximately 200,000 employees in these categories who are covered by the act. The legislation is analogous to provincial workmen's compensation legislation which is applicable to employees in private industry and their employers.
The provision for payment of compensation to workers for injury or death sustained in the course of and arising out of the workman's employment is essentially a matter of civil rights and as such falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. All provinces have enacted workmen's compensation laws. These are not applicable, however, to the crown in right of Canada and its employees.
The purpose of the Government Employees Compensation Act was to afford to employees of the crown a measure of protection similar to that provided to employees of private employers under provincial workmen's compensation laws. Thus the resolution introducing the original government employees' compensation act enacted in 1918 reads as follows:
That an employee in the service of His Majesty who is injured . . . shall be entitled to the same compensation as the employee of a person other than His Majesty would, under similar circumstances, be entitled to receive under the law of the province in which the accident occurs.
The provisions of the present act accordingly provide for this intention. Pursuant to these provisions the provincial workmen's compensation boards have by arrangement handled the adjudication of claims of employees under the federal act as the agent of the federal government.
Our experience with the provincial boards has, I believe, been a mutually satisfactory one. I would like here to express our appreciation of the manner in which our interest and the interests of our employees have been looked after by the provincial workmen's compensation boards. Our injured employees receive good care and are entitled to the same services and facilities as are available to other injured work people. On the very practical matter of costs, I have no reason to depart from the statement I made in this house on May 7, 1952, when I said:
-the objective, of course, in asking the various provincial workmen's compensation boards to act as adjudicators under this act was for the purpose of economy.
Of course, that is still a very important objective. If the provincial governments did

not do this work it would be necessary to set up a fairly ambitious establishment centrally to carry it into effect.
In addition to repaying the boards for all disbursements on claims, the federal government pays to each of the boards a portion of its total administration expenses determined largely by the extent to which we use their services. Here in Ottawa we have a branch in the Department of Labour that looks after general administration and facilitates the handling of the employees' work-injury claims. The branch supplies supplementary information to the boards, checks disbursements, reviews and certifies monthly accounts and, in general, keeps records of all accidents, their cause, the nature of the injuries and so on.
One ordinarily does not regard government service as containing what might be called hazardous occupations. While this may correctly apply to office staffs in general, it should be pointed out that there are many employees doing difficult work of a hazardous nature in research, on surveys, on inspection, in transport, and in remote areas under unusual conditions and circumstances that may involve risks.
For example, the departments presided over by my colleagues, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), as was very much in evidence in the frozen north within the last few days, have employees who are living dangerously.
To illustrate the point, during the fiscal year 1953-54 there were about 15,000 claims; fortunately about two-thirds of these involved "no lost time"-in other words, medical aid only was required. I hardly need mention that in co-operation with other departments efforts are being made towards a reduction in these accidental injuries.
Although the legislation has been amended a few times with respect to particular provisions, there has been no general revision of the act since its inception in 1918. The provisions of the act have been carefully reviewed over the past year and it is considered that a number of the provisions now require amendment and that some new ones should be added in the light of current conditions, needs and practices.
The proposed amendments provide that the entitlement to and rates of compensation payable to an employee under the act shall be determined in accordance with and under the same circumstances as are provided under the law of the province where the employee
Government Employees Compensation Act is usually employed rather than, as at present, under the law of the province where the accident occurred or the industrial disease was contracted.
It is considered that this change will bring the application of the legislation more closely in line with provincial workmen's compensation legislation which applies generally if the employee's usual place of employment is in the province even though the specific accident may have occurred outside the province. It is considered that the change will make for a more equitable and beneficial application of the legislation for employees making claims under the act.
Other proposed amendments will extend the coverage of the act to persons who are not paid a direct wage or salary by the crown but who are otherwise employees; for example, a person on loan to a government agency from private industry.
The amendments will provide for greater uniformity of coverage in the case of employees who are assigned to work outside Canada by providing that for the purposes of the act the usual place of employment of such employees shall be deemed to be Ontario. This means that all claims of such employees will be dealt with by reference to the Ontario workmen's compensation board and the application of the Ontario act.
Changes are also proposed, firstly, in the provisions of the act governing the prosecution of actions instituted by an employee or the crown, under subrogation of the right of the employee, against third parties for damages for negligence in the case of accidents which give rise to claims for compensation under the act; and, secondly, in the provisions governing the disposition of amounts recovered by the crown from third parties in actions of this nature. These changes will operate for the benefit of employees affected.
Under new sections it is proposed that accident prevention activities and safety programs within the federal public service be co-ordinated and further developed. We are also providing that rehabilitation services be clearly stated as among the benefits that are conferred by the legislation.
The bill incorporates in the act a number of other existing compensation measures for special groups and situations which provide some form of compensation either in lieu of or in addition to that provided by the act. It is considered that it would be more satisfactory to have these related measures incorporated in the act. The consolidation of these provisions will, I think, result in better service to our employees and improved administration.
1562	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act
Included also are provisions for compensation to staff locally engaged abroad and additional benefits where an employee dies as a result of an accident while absent on duty from his usual place of employment.
I feel that these proposals will commend themselves to the house, indicative as they are of progress in this field and paralleling in some respects developments that have taken place in the provinces. I shall be very glad to give further detailed explanations as the resolution and bill move forward.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, from the minister's remarks as to the bill to be brought forward it would seem that we will be concerned largely with a tidying up of the act and with putting into the bill what has become practice throughout the years. For that reason, I hardly think it calls for an extended debate at this stage. However, I would like to make a few brief remarks.
I was intrigued by the minister's comment that government employees were not considered generally to be engaged in hazardous occupations, and then he proceeded to set out various departments in which it was considered there was an element of hazard. I would draw to his attention the fact that even office staffs have accidents on occasion. Indeed I have been somewhat surprised there are not more accidents in the beautiful halls of this very building. Undoubtedly the floors in the halls are beautiful; nevertheless they are very dangerous; and it has always been a surprise to me that more people are not the victims of accidents in those halls and on the marble stairways. However, I suppose those who use this building are now familiar with the danger, and take extra precautions.
Even in the minister's explanation there is a certain degree of vagueness, some of which will be ironed out no doubt when we reach second reading. The first part of the resolution refers to certain persons who are not paid a direct wage. It is still a bit vague, in my view, and oerhaps the minister will be more explicit in his explanation when we have the bill before us. It may be, too, that the bill itself will be in greater detail than we understand at this point.
I am wondering however about persons locally engaged outside of Canada-whether it refers to citizens of other countries or only to Canadians who are posted abroad to the various offices of the departments of the Canadian government. Inasmuch as the administration in connection with compensation has always been under the jurisdiction of provincial workmen's compensation boards, I am wondering whether those boards have been consulted and their reactions obtained with regard to this measure.


Then there is the provision for additional benefits where an employee dies as the result of an accident while absent on duty from his usual place of employment. Perhaps when he replies the minister will tell us whether this refers to an increase in death benefits, or refers to expenses incurred by reason of absence from a person's usual place of employment. I would be interested to know, and I am sure other hon. members have a like interest, whether this represents a raising of the rate-although I cannot see how that will be possible, in view of the fact that the provinces have jurisdiction.
The minister referred to the intention to institute some form of accident prevention propaganda, if we may use that word. I have noticed some folders around this building in the last little while, and I am wondering if the sending out of these folders represents a new departure, and whether it is the intention of the Department of Labour to accelerate its activities in this field. In any event, is this program being undertaken in collaboration with the industrial accident prevention society, which works in close conjunction with the workmen's compensation boards of the provinces?
These are thoughts which come to mind, upon hearing the minister's explanation. As I said, when we have the bill before us we will have specific questions to ask with regard to its various clauses. At this stage however it will be interesting to have the minister answer the points I have raised.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the statement of the Minister of Labour on this resolution, and I think I can say fairly on behalf of members in this group that, speaking generally, we welcome any measure which tends to extend the area of general responsibility covering the hazards of individuals in the course of their employment.
I realize of course that it is impossible to understand fully all that may be involved in the measure until we see the bill-although I think the minister made clear what its general purpose would be. The minister's reference to the extension of this coverage to people employed by the government of Canada outside this country is one of the most interesting features in the legislation. If it does apply-as I am inclined to assume it does, and certainly hope it does-to the nationals of any country who may be engaged from time to time by the government of Canada, this feature in itself should serve to enhance the good name of Canada abroad, wherever the government of this country on behalf of our people may be conducting activities from time to time.

Government Employees Compensation Act
I would be interested to know why the province of Ontario, and its compensation act, has been picked as the province to set the standard for the benefits to be provided in this connection. As I am not a citizen of Ontario, I am not too familiar with the details of the act of this province; nor do I know whether it compares favourably or unfavourably in the rate of benefits with similar provisions in the workmen's compensation act in British Columbia. I notice that this would appear to be an extension of a principle already in the act, where benefits extended to people in the Northwest Territories are tied to the workmen's compensation act of Alberta.
When I read that particular section of the measure I wondered whether that was the soundest principle for the federal government to follow in legislation of this kind. It is my personal opinion that if the federal government in Canada is going to provide coverage to its employees, it could very well have its legislation in such form that the coverage would be at least as good as that provided by any province in Canada. There might be occasions when the legislation in British Columbia would be better than that in Nova Scotia, or the legislation in Nova Scotia better than that in Alberta or Ontario.
It seems to me that the sounder principle, and one that could very well be incorporated in the act, while it is up for review in its application to people outside Canada and others in the northern part of the country to whom it has not applied heretofore would be to see that the federal government would provide coverage as good as that provided anywhere in Canada. With respect to employees regularly domiciled or employed in a certain province, perhaps there would be no quarrel with the suggestion that a federal government employee who is a regular resident in and citizen of British Columbia, or some other province, should be provided with coverage equal to that offered by the province. But in connection with people outside the country, or outside any province, it seems to me there is room at least for consideration of a somewhat broader principle in the matter of applying the rate of compensation and ancillary benefits.
I was interested to hear the minister make reference to additional emphasis being placed upon the matter of accident prevention through his department in relation to those who are employed in the government service. Certainly, in the province in which I live, this is a matter which is attracting increasing attention by employers and those who are engaged in industry. Judging from
experience in the industry, with which I have had some association, namely, the forest products industry of British Columbia, I may say that the results have actually been astounding, when one studies the present accident frequency ratios and compares them with those that existed a few years ago in an occupation that has always been regarded as a hazardous one. I am quite pleased and I shall look forward to hearing more details of the measures proposed in this particular field.
I think that is all the comment I have to make on the resolution at this time, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Hahn: On behalf of the group of which I am a member, I wish to congratulate the minister on bringing this resolution forward at this time. There are three points that I should like to mention. One is accident prevention. That is dealt with to a degree in this resolution, and I expect we shall hear more on it later. The second is compensation for injury by accident. Certainly, that is the purpose behind the resolution itself. The third point is the matter of employment. That is one which we are to deal with at another time.
At least we have every indication that the Minister of Labour is up to snuff in knowing what the problems are and in trying to find some cure for them. One or two parts of the resolution interest me particularly. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to the fact that payments are to be made on the basis of the Ontario compensation act. I am not too sure just why the minister chose Ontario. I should like to know why, and he will probably tell us later. Personally, I feel that, to keep everybody happy within the various provinces, the claims should be paid on a basis comparable to that of the province in which the man is employed. If that were done it might be more satisfactory to the workers in the area. That might not meet with the approval of everyone, but it will at least cut down the opposition from groups in the area who receive compensation on a particular ratio. I am not sure whether or not Ontario's compensation act provides more or less than ours does in British Columbia, but I can well imagine that, being the province we are, it does not take in so much, but I am not sure of that and I shall have to wait until later to find out.
There is another factor that I should like to mention, namely, the government's responsibility with respect to coverage of persons on loan from private industry. I am satisfied that that is a definite step forward. Private industry would look after the individual if he were employed in that field, and I am
1564	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act happy to be able to compliment the minister on his having included this group in the resolution. If private industry lends us individuals whom we use in governmental enterprises it is not right that we should not accept the responsibility while they are working for us.
The other matter that I have in mind has to do with accidents. We are providing for additional benefits for employees who die as a result of accidents while on duty at a place other than their usual place of employment. I was wondering whether the purpose behind this was to cover penitentiary guards who are often used to try to corral escapees from penitentiaries? It sometimes happens that these guards are not in their usual place of employment. In my own area we find that from time to time these guards are posted on the bridges waiting for some convict who in desperation may run them down and they die, or are seriously injured. We do not have too many escapees in my area but we have had several in the past few years. I should like the minister to explain at greater length the exact purpose behind this part of the resolution and whether or not those guards would be protected under the legislation when it is passed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to comment on some of the points that have been raised. With respect to the others, perhaps hon. members will bear with me if I refer to them at a later date. The hon. member for Hamilton West asked an important question, whether the terms of the proposed amendments meet with the approval of the provinces which will be asked to co-operate. The answer to that is definitely in the affirmative. That was one of the first questions I asked my officials. Of course, the co-operation between my officials who work on this matter and those in the provinces is very close because, to tell the truth, the latter do the most important part of the work.
She also asked a question about those "persons locally engaged outside of Canada." That is an odd expression, but this would be an example. The Department of External Affairs have certain personnel in the Paris embassy who are locally engaged, persons such as stenographers, interpreters, and so on, who are not Canadian civil servants in the sense that we have them here.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: My point was, they are not necessarily Canadian citizens?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Not necessarily; that is quite true.
With respect to the matter of death benefits and accident prevention in detail, I would
CMr. Hahn.]

prefer to wait until we get further on. The accident prevention program in this field is comparatively new. I do not think that in this effort anything very important had been done in my department prior to several years ago. We are, of course, co-operating with all existing accident prevention agencies in this field within the government service.
The other questions that she asked, and some of the questions that were asked by other hon. members, I shall be glad to answer later.
After the debate on second reading, it is my intention to ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations for detailed study.
With respect to the questions asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for New Westminster, they both put me on the spot by demanding a snap decision as to which province in Canada has the most satisfactory workmen's compensation plan. I am going to leave that to their good judgment later on after they have a chance to see just how those various plans work out in detail. I do not think anybody in Canada will deny that the province of Ontario, in its efforts for the rehabilitation of the worker and the work that has been going on at such places as Malton, has the best facilities for rehabilitating injured workers. But there are other factors as well as rehabilitation, and we can look at them when we come to a study of the bill.
The main reason Ontario was chosen is this. Servants posted might be drawn from personnel serving in Ottawa or Hamilton, Windsor, Moose Jaw, Vancouver, Halifax, and so on. If they are going abroad it is not on behalf of any province but on behalf of the federal government. It happens that the headquarters of the federal government are in the city of Ottawa which is, of course, in the great province of Ontario. It seemed reasonable that because one province had to be chosen, the province in which the headquarters of the Canadian civil service exists should have been that one.
The other points, Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to discuss later.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 188, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act to extend the benefits and the application of the act, and to provide further for certain changes in consequence thereof and also in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, as the resolution indicates, this bill will be designed to bring about a minor extension of the benefits under the act, as well as a broadening of the coverage to include certain groups of persons employed in the public service who are not contributors under the act at the present time. In addition there will be a number of amendments dealing with purely administrative points which have arisen during the first year of the operation of this act, which came into force on January 1, 1954.
The new act brought with it the addition of some 60,000 temporary employees as contributors under the act. Nearly all of these persons had periods of prior service for which they might elect to contribute, and it has not proven to be feasible to process the large number of elections made by them within the year provided by the act. Accordingly one of the more important amendments is to permit a limited extension of this election period. I might add that in order to allay concern on this point the Minister of Finance announced last September that it was the government's intention to ask parliament to make this amendment.
The principal extension of coverage proposed under the act would make it possible for the governor in council to designate sessional employees of the Senate and House of Commons as contributors just as is presently done in the case of prevailing rate and seasonal employees.
It turns out that the elections to contribute for prior service are sometimes made on the basis of erroneous information, with the result that when presented with the true cost the contributor may want to back out of the agreement he has made but he is now precluded from doing so by the act. In some cases, perhaps because of illness, the payment of future instalments becomes a financial hardship. One of the proposed amendments will make it possible for a person to revoke 50433-100
Public Service Superannuation Act or alter his election by reducing the remaining instalments and thereby reducing his entitlement to pension.
These are the principal amendments which the government proposes. There are some quite minor ones which I shall explain later, after hon. members have had a chance to study the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the introduction of this resolution. If one looks back to the debate in April, 1953, at which time the present act was passed, one finds that there were two chief things in the minds of the government and those who supported the bill. The first was to deal with a situation which was growing unwieldy concerning the so-called temporary employees, many of whom were not temporary in any real sense of the word. The second consideration was to make the benefits under the act a matter of right rather than ex gratia. I believe these two things were uppermost in the mind of the minister. Perhaps a third consideration was the question of the actuarial soundness of the measure.
I should like to read one or two statements made by the minister and by my own leader at that time. At page 3942 of Hansard for April 16, 1953, the Minister of Finance said:
I shall not try to cover the details of this admittedly complex piece of legislation because, as soon as second reading has been given, I propose to move that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee for detailed study.
After speaking about contributions which had been made from the consolidated revenue fund toward the financial soundness of the bill the minister continued:
In this connection hon. members will recall that, just over a year ago, I tabled a report on the actuarial examination of the superannuation account prepared by the chief actuary of the department of insurance.
Reading now from page 3943 the minister had this to say:
Steps have been taken, as hon. members know, to see that no further deficits develop and the new bill contains a requirement that an actuarial report be laid before parliament at least once in every five years.
The minister continued:
In addition, of course, special contributions, such as those which I have just mentioned, will have to be made from time to time to reduce the deficiency which already exists or to make good any new deficiency created by a general salary increase which cannot be foreseen in establishing the contribution and benefit pattern.
Later on the minister added:
And, of course, if there were a general willingness to pay higher rates of contribution the benefits under the plan could be still further improved.

Public Service Superannuation Act
I would like to read a word or two from the remarks made by my own leader at that time. At page 3946 of Hansard for April 16,	1953, the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Drew) said:
Mr. Speaker, I think there will be general agreement by all the members of the house with the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in closing his remarks when he said that it is essential that we give to the civil servants that feeling of security and certainty of employment which in itself contributes greatly to the efficiency of their work by the state of mind that this feeling in itself produces.
Further on in the same statement he referred to the need of dealing with the temporary situation in order to create a feeling of permanence and security. Still later he referred with special approval to reciprocal agreements in respect to the transfer of employees from dominion to provincial employment, for example.
I would like now to make one or two comments on the statement by the parliamentary assistant. I think it is desirable that the period of election by temporary employees should be extended for a reasonable length of time. I believe we should be fair in that connection. However, we should not make it too easy for people to obtain exemption because if they make inadequate payments an emotional situation will be created when it comes to the time of their retirement when it will be difficult to be hardhearted. Therefore I repeat that it seems to me we should carefully examine at this time the cases of people who do not want to share in the plan because when the time comes for their retirement they will have exactly the same requirements as-and indeed perhaps more than-the people who have shared in the plan.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask before I take my seat. Speaking in April, 1953, the minister told us that there was an estimated actuarial shortfall of $189 million as of March 31, 1953. When he replies perhaps the parliamentary assistant might give us the present situation. Then there is a reference to prevailing rate and seasonal employees. In the parliamentary assistant's statement I also notice a reference to sessional employees of the Senate and the House of Commons. Those seem to me to be the points which arise on a first consideration of the resolution. The rest we can find out later on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it seems we all agree that this is the type of measure we can deal with better when we have before us the actual bill with its various terms spelled out. However, I think it is not amiss for us to say that, in so far as it has been described to us by the parliamentary assistant
fMr. Macdonnell.l

to the Minister of Finance, the legislation is welcome. I agree with the proposal that the period of election should be extended as announced by the Minister of Finance, and it seems to me that the other details suggested by the parliamentary assistant are appropriate.
I want to express in particular my pleasure that arrangements are to be made for sessional employees of the Senate and the House of Commons to be covered by the Public Service Superannuation Act if they so wish. As members who have been around here for a long time will know, some of us for many years have been expressing regret that here in the parliament of Canada where we are supposed to be making laws affecting the well-being of the people of this country, until recently we have had no pension provision for any of our own employees. Recently those on a year-round basis were taken in under the cover of the Public Service Superannuation Act; but the others who are called sessional, even though they are available to work for the Senate and the House of Commons year in and year out, have had no pension provision.
Perhaps I should withhold any further comment on that matter until we see what the details are. One hopes that the task of paying for back service is not going to be too onerous, and that consideration will be given in some way to the long delay in covering this group of employees. Generally speaking, I am glad to see this step being taken.
The parliamentary assistant and others over there with him-I see he still has a few sitting around him-will know that there is one point which I had hoped might be covered in any superannuation act legislation, but despite listening closely I did not hear the words fall from the lips of the parliamentary assistant. He knows, as do the rest of those on the other side, that the time is long overdue when something should be done to meet the position of retired civil servants, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower and middle brackets.
We have no quarrel with the act as it now stands on the statute books. There is room for little improvements here and there, and they can be made as time goes on. It is a good act as far as those now in the public service are concerned; but there are retired servants of the federal government who were pensioned off a number of years ago, whose pensions are terribly low particularly in the light of today's cost of living. I still feel that something should be done for them.
Every time one raises this question there is a certain line of reply that is given from

the other side. I know it as well as the government members do because I have heard it so often. One of those answers is that not many other jurisdictions do this sort of thing; that is, that not many other jurisdictions increase the pensions of those retired some years previously. I have had occasion from time to time to tell of jurisdictions that have done just this thing. I now wish to point out that recently the province of Ontario took action to increase the pensions of the retired school teachers in that province; that is, with respect to teachers already retired and on pension for a number of years.
That action was taken because the goverm ment of the province of Ontario apparently recognized that the cost of living had gone up since then, and that something should be done to maintain the pension position of these retired employees. That is exactly the position taken by the province of Newfoundland and the province of Saskatchewan with respect to their civil servants; and that position has been taken by the United States federal administration. It has also been taken by the government of the United Kingdom.
I hope the day will soon come when that same principle will be recognized by the government of Canada. This Public Service Superannuation Act is good legislation; but the government cannot really boast about its treatment of its retired civil servants until it does something for this group who went out a number of years ago and whose pensions are still unfairly and ridiculously low. I hope something will be done about this matter before the end of this session.


Mr. Leboe:: I have just a couple of simple questions to ask. I am not certain whether or not the answers were contained in the statement, but if so I did not notice them. Will those people under prevailing rates who wish to pay the 6 per cent superannuation rate instead of the 5 per cent retirement fund rate have the opportunity to come under the superannuation fund? Also, if that is the case, what method will be used to determine who will qualify?


William Moore Benidickson: I think several of the questions that have been asked could be more properly answered when we are in committee on second reading of the bill. However, the hon. member for Greenwood raised a question as to the actuarial deficit position or liability position of the fund. It has not changed from the position of roughly $189 million of liability. In order to carry out the undertaking that there would be no increase in the liability of the fund, the government each year pays into the fund interest on that amount. My hon. friend will 50433-100J
Income Tax
also remember that when the liability has been reduced in the past, it has usually been as the result of asking parliament for a vote in a supplementary estimate. That of course usually comes toward the end of the fiscal year. However, there has been no change since the figure of $189 million and the date referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I interject a question there? That means that in the time that has elapsed since the minister gave us that figure, roughly two years, the scale of contribution in payment of interest has kept it actuarially sound. I suppose there may be a little bit of room for, shall I say, variations here or there. As I understand it, it is not quite clear how many thousand employees previously called temporary employees will eventually be in.


William Moore Benidickson: Each year the main estimates have a figure which involves the annual obligation of the government to pay in a normal way its matching contribution as an employer. In addition to that, there is now included in the estimates the sum required to equal in a matching grant the contributions during that year made by employees for services in previous years. In addition, the main estimates include an item for interest to the fund, and the item for interest has included in the last two years an obligation of 4 per cent on the $189 million.
May I say to the hon. member for Cariboo that I did not hear his question, and I would prefer to read it and give my answer on second reading of the bill. I thought he was making reference to prevailing rate and seasonal employees. It is not proposed to amend the act with respect to these people. What I did say in my remarks was that we hoped to treat the sessional employees of the House of Commons and the Senate in a manner comparable to the present arrangements for seasonal and prevailing rate employees.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. McCann (for Mr. Harris) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 189, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 124, to implement an agreement between

Income Tax
Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I have much to add to the statement I made upon introduction and first reading of the bill. In order to explain its principle, may I say that the purpose of the bill is to give legal effect in Canada to the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation and the establishment of rules for reciprocal fiscal assistance in the matter of income taxes.
This agreement was signed at Ottawa on behalf of the government of Canada by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on the 28th of October, 1954, and was also signed by the ambassador of Ireland. The agreement follows the pattern established in the present income tax agreements which Canada has made with the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand and France, and has for its purpose the avoidance of double taxation and the exchange of information.
Double taxation is avoided chiefly by a reciprocal system of tax credits in which the country of residence gives credit for the tax imposed by the country where the income has its source. The agreement contains the usual provision limiting the taxation of trading profits to the permanent establishment rule. In addition, certain special provisions are made. Profits from the operation of ships and aircraft will be taxed solely in the country of the residence of the operator.
When we get into committee I shall give an explanation of the different articles. The bill itself is very short, having only five sections. The schedule attached is the most important part of the bill, and is set up in the form of different articles which I shall explain when we are in committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no question of principle that arises. I have a question to raise regarding the form of the agreement itself which is sought to be sanctioned by the legislation. I take it that should be dealt with when we are in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Agreement approved.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is an agreement between Canada and Ireland. Incidentally, I am told that the word "Ireland" is incorrect and that it should properly be described in other terms, but I am not going to press that.

My point has reference to article I of the agreement which is in part in these terms:
1. The taxes which are subject to this agreement are:
(a) In Canada: Income taxes, including surtaxes, which are imposed by the government of Canada, hereinafter referred to as "Canadian tax".
In this connection-and the same point arises when we come to succession duties-I suggest that there is a very serious omission, there being no reference to any provincial taxes. When we come to succession duties, for example, we shall find that Ontario still levies succession duties, and yet there is no reference to that in Bill No. 125.
Coming back to Bill No. 124, a situation now exists in the province of Quebec whereby a provincial income tax is being levied; and even though it is suggested we are going to have legislation which will give an exemption of part of that tax to the Quebec taxpayer, there are still to be taxes paid in the province of Quebec which will not be covered by this agreement. Ireland has just one government. It is not a federal state. Therefore a citizen of Ireland affected by this legislation gets his whole tax credit. The bill affects his whole tax, whereas under the agreement we have here which we are asked to approve, only taxes levied by the government of Canada are included. I suggest that is an unwarranted omission, and that we should not approve the agreement. At any rate, it seems to me there is a prima facie objection to the agreement as it now stands. I state that, and we will hear what the minister has to say.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, for purposes of convenience I suggest that we take the different sections of the bill and probably when we come to the schedule we could discuss more conveniently the matters which have been raised by the hon. member. However, in reply to his observations I might say that we have no authority to enter into any agreement with Ireland, whether or not the hon. member likes the name, on behalf of the provincial authorities. This legislation has to do only with federal taxation in Canada and, of course, with taxation in Ireland.
Reference is made to the government of Ireland which is that part of the island known as the Free State. Northern Ireland is part and parcel of the agreement we have between Canada and the United Kingdom. The people who live in Northern Ireland have exactly the same opportunities and conditions under the agreement existing between Great Britain and Canada. The agreement now before us is an agreement involving what one might call the rest of the island, and it is referred to as the government of Ireland.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has said that the federal government of Canada has no authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of the provinces, but that does not seem to me to answer the substance of the situation. After all, the provinces cannot go out and negotiate agreements with foreign countries, because they have not the jurisdiction to do so.
If I am right in my contention, then it seems to me that the minister's answer is no answer at all. I suspect strongly that what has happened is that the agreements which have been executed with other countries, at a time when this present situation did not exist exactly as it does now, may have been used as a pattern without this question having been raised. If in fact that is so, then I suggest that this matter should stand without any further discussion until the legal authorities determine whether or not there is any substance in the point I am raising.
I have discussed this with people whom I consider to be competent taxation authorities, and they certainly think there is substance in this.- Therefore I do submit to the minister that at least he discuss the matter with the Department of Justice and we be not asked to go forward with this measure this afternoon until an answer is available to the question I have raised.
Let me take the succession duty case, which I think is a simpler one. Recently the province of Ontario entered into a taxation agreement with the Dominion of Canada, and part of that agreement was that the province of Ontario, unlike most of the tax agreement provinces, kept its own succession tax power. Presumably the dominion got what it considered to be value received for leaving that power in the hands of Ontario. I submit that the Ontario citizen is entitled, his government having made an agreement of this kind with the dominion, by whatever means it should be done not to be discriminated against in respect to an agreement made with Ireland because of the fact that he is paying a double succession duty as against the citizen of another province who is not.
I raise the question whether this point should not be seriously considered. Unless the minister is able to tell me that this point has been fully covered and that there is no substance at all in my suggestion, then I respectfully and earnestly suggest that this matter stand over.


James Joseph McCann: That is a rather peculiar position to take. The hon. gentleman has known that this has been on the order paper and was to come up last week and again today. He might well have made these objections privately.
Income Tax


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I interrupt to tell the minister quite frankly that I thought of this only this morning.


James Joseph McCann: I brought it to your attention last Thursday and it was on the order paper for Friday, and no objection was raised at that time. I may say that this whole matter has been referred to the Department of Justice, and the advice we have from the Department of Justice and from our own legal authorities is to the effect that this is quite within the jurisdiction of the federal government, that is, making this agreement with Ireland and having it ratified by parliament.	,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister able to say that the definite point which I have raised was specifically referred to the Department of Justice, that the agreement was made with full knowledge of it, and that therefore there is nothing further to be considered?


James Joseph McCann: I am sure these matters must have come to the attention of the Department of Justice. This act and this agreement have been approved by the Department of Justice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have the highest respect for the Department of Justice, but I suppose even the Department of Justice is fallible. The minister has not answered my question. My question was whether this specific point which I am now raising was referred to the Department of Justice, and whether an opinion was given on it. It does not satisfy me in the least to have the minister say there are other agreements like this, and that the Department of Justice must have considered this. We have a new situation which has arisen probably since the first of these agreements was indicated. They probably antedate the agreement made by Ontario, and I am suggesting that this is a specific case on which a definite opinion should be given.


Mr. Knight:: Is this proposed legislation identical to the agreement with the United Kingdom, which would of course include Northern Ireland?


James Joseph McCann: It may not be identical in its wording, but it is substantially the same type of agreement as we have with the United Kingdom.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In other words, Northern Ireland is covered already by a similar regulation?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To all intents and purposes it is the same as this particular agreement?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.

Income Tax


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am a little confused at the term. I notice that it seems to be the practice to divide the country into Ireland and Northern Ireland. That situation is pretty confusing to most Canadians. Far be it from me to enter into a political controversy, particularly one concerning my native country. I used to imagine that I was born in Ireland, but apparently I was not. It seems that I was born in a different country, Northern Ireland. I just wanted to know if the regulations are the same, and I have been assured by the minister that they are.
As to the phraseology used, I looked at the bill carefully to see if I could find the two countries mentioned in the same paragraph, but I was unable to find that. However, I did find in the bill with which we will be dealing a little later a paragraph which distinctly mentions Ireland and Northern Ireland. I presume from now on that will be the practice which will be followed. I do not suppose there is anything we can do about it. I simply point out that most people will be pretty confused when reference is made to this particular regulation as applying to Ireland.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I submit that I have made a reasonable request and I hope it will be granted. I have asked the minister whether an opinion has been given. Let me point out again that I shrewdly suspect that the first of these agreements were made when we had tax rental agreements.


James Joseph McCann: Tax agreements with whom?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With some other countries, from which this agreement may have been copied. However, that is irrelevant. I am rising to point out that the minister has not answered my question. If it has substance, and certain competent people think it has, then it should be referred specifically to justice. We should not be asked to take an omnibus assurance by the minister that Justice has considered everything. Justice considers only what is submitted to it for consideration. It may be that they have not considered this point at all. I think I have made a reasonable suggestion, that this should be adjourned until the Department of Justice has been asked for its opinion.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice drafted this bill, and they are fully aware of their responsibilities. When this bill was drafted they knew of the conditions to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I will admit that after we got the bill it was not sent back to them following the argument of the opposition, because in

conference with the officials of the Department of Justice I am informed that they took into consideration the very points which the hon. gentleman has raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member tell us what the point is? We have not heard it down in this part of the chamber.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have suggested that this agreement with Ireland should include not merely taxes levied by the Dominion of Canada, but that in the case of Ontario there is the question of succession duties. Ontario still levies its own succession duties. Therefore you have a man living in Ontario and another man living in Ireland, which is a unitary state. In Ireland that man's tax will be subject to this agreement. In Ontario the only part of his tax subject to the agreement will be that part which he pays to the dominion which, in the case of succession duties, is much smaller.
I submit that a citizen of Ontario is entitled to have the dominion government act for him in his capacity as a citizen of Ontario as well as that of a dominion taxpayer; for in an agreement which leaves with the province of Ontario the right to levy its own succession duties it is reasonable to suppose that the dominion would get a quid pro quo. In other words I say that the citizen of Ontario is entitled to believe that this agreement should cover the whole of his succession duties. If that is not so, then he is not getting an equal deal vis-a-vis the man who lives in Ireland and who pays a unitary tax.
The minister says to me that this point has been considered. I should say that first of all he seemed just to infer that it had been considered, saying that it must have been. Now he says more positively that it has been considered. He also tells me that one objection to my suggestion is that the dominion cannot negotiate on behalf of the provinces, and that the only agreement the dominion can make is on behalf of itself. However sound that may be in the narrow contemplation of constitutional law, it does not seem to me to make sense; because the province of Ontario cannot itself negotiate an agreement on succession duties with Ireland-at least I assume it cannot. Therefore the only way a citizen of Ontario can have his rights covered is through an agreement made by the federal government on his behalf.
I suggest therefore that this agreement is defective, and that in order to do justice to the citizen of Ontario it should cover not merely succession duties payable to the dominion but payable to Ontario as well; because that is, in essence, the basis of the arrangement made with Ireland, where the Irish citizen is getting a deduction in respect

of his whole tax, not merely a fraction of his tax, which will be the case with the citizen of Ontario.
If I have stated the point correctly, it seems to me it has a measure of common sense in it. Unless the minister can satisfy me that what I have said is unreasonable I should think he would want to be the first to have it withdrawn and looked into further. Not being a man who is in the happy position of always being sure he is right, I have consulted with more than one other person, persons who are competent to have opinions in the matter, and their view is the same as mine; that at any rate this is worth being looked into. For the life of me I cannot understand why the minister should object. If he can satisfy me that I am wrong, I shall have nothing more to say. But if by any chance I should be right, then this should be corrected now.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that I can give any answer, except to offer the plain fact that we are dealing with federal taxes and not with provincial taxes. I know the hon. member would not want to go back over every other agreement we have with other countries, and change them to meet the same objection.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If they were wrong, yes.


James Joseph McCann: There are agreements with Great Britain, the United States and France, and there were no such objections when those agreements were drawn up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My answer is that if they were wrong, then of course they should be changed.


James Joseph McCann: Nobody has suggested they are wrong, except yourself.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it will not carry. I suggest that in any event the minister should take us through the articles of agreement and explain them to us, because there may be other things that are not right.


James Joseph McCann: Would it not be better to discuss the articles when we come to the schedule?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


James Joseph McCann: There are five clauses in the bill.
Income Tax


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are on clause 2, and clause 2 says;
The agreement entered into between Canada and Ireland, set out in the schedule, is approved and declared to have the force of law in Canada.
We have this agreement before us, and the minister should go through it and explain the various clauses.


James Joseph McCann: I am willing to do that. Shall we take it up article by article?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: Or shall I give a full explanation.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: We are not in process of passing the schedule at the moment, but for the sake of orderly discussion we can call them and the hon. member may indicate the points he wishes to discuss. We will call article I.


James Joseph McCann: The following is an explanation of article I in the agreement. This article contains specific reference to the respective taxes to which the agreement applies. In Canada it applies to income tax, including surtaxes. I might point out that this bill has to do with income tax, not with succession duties. That is the bill to follow.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will come to that.


James Joseph McCann: Most of the hon. member's observations have been in reference to a bill which is not before us at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought it was easier to understand.


James Joseph McCann: Perhaps so. I have said that article I contains specific reference to respective taxes to which the agreement applies in Canada. It applies to income tax. Income tax in Canada is personal income tax and corporation tax; and in Ireland, to income tax, including surtax, and to what they call over there the corporation profits tax. It also provides that the agreement will apply to any substantially similar taxes which may be imposed by either government during the time the agreement is in force.
Now, is there any other question on article I?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Article II.


James Joseph McCann: This is a general definition article. The definition of the term "permanent establishment" in paragraph 1(h) is of particular importance in the application of article III.
Then article III provides that an Irish enterprise will only be taxed in Canada with respect to industrial and commercial profits to the extent that these are attributable to

Income Tax
its permanent establishment in Canada. I might interject a remark at this point with reference to permanent establishment, because this matter has been discussed in connection with former agreements over the years. For instance, it means that if a Canadian manufacturing concern has a place of business, let us say, in Dublin or anywhere else in Ireland and that place is used for display purposes, but the goods which would be sold there would not be actually delivered from that warehouse, then it is not taxable there. But if they have a manufacturing concern in Ireland which makes sales of goods, the profits from that establishment would be taxable. That is what is referred to as a permanent establishment.
The same rule applies reciprocally with respect to the industrial and commercial profits of a Canadian enterprise in Ireland. A subsidiary company is not considered to be a permanent establishment, and the parent company will not be subject to tax in the foreign country on the industrial and commercial profits which its subsidiary earns in that country, except in so far as payments may be made to the parent company by way of dividends, interest, and other similar payments, subject to the further provisions of the agreement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is a subsidiary company defined, or is it just in the ordinary understanding of a company controlled by another company?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that it is specifically defined here. It is the usual meaning in law; that is, a company which is controlled by at least 51 per cent of the shares.


Mr. Fleming:: "Subsidiary" is not a word that has a very precise and acknowledged legal meaning. The minister says this word means a company the majority of whose issued shares are owned or controlled by another company, amounting to say 51 per cent. What of the case where, although not owning outright a majority of the shares of the junior company, the senior company nevertheless exercises effective control? There are lots of situations where a good deal less than a majority of the issued shares nevertheless represents effective control.


James Joseph McCann: I am informed by my officials that a subsidiary company is one which is controlled by at least 51 per cent of the shares, and that there have been court decisions to that effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In other words it is confined to the case where a senior company owns outright a majority of the issued shares of stock of the junior company?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It does not apply to the case where a senior company, while owning only a minority of the issued shares of the junior company, nevertheless exercises effective control?


James Joseph McCann: No, it would not apply to effective control. For instance, in this country a company might own only 35 per cent yet control all the meetings of the directors, and so forth. But it has not a majority control. By working with other people it has control. This provision means that it has actual ownership of control which amounts to over 50 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nothing less than ownership of a majority of the shares brings it within the scope of the definition?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Section 3 of article III reads:
Where an enterprise of one of the territories is engaged in trade or business in the other territory through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall be attributed to such permanent establishment the industrial or commercial profits which it might be expected to derive in that other territory if it were an independent enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing at arm's length with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment.
The point I am dealing with is "dealing at arm's length with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment." Does that mean you have a controlled corporation about which you have just been talking, and that it is said to be dealing at arm's length with the enterprise by which it is controlled? Have I read that correctly?


James Joseph McCann: I would think that the profits of that branch, in relation to head office, are considered as those of an independent company from the head office, and for tax purposes they would be taxable.
Article IV provides for the rectification of accounts where associated companies or persons in the two countries deal with each other on terms different from what would have been the case as between independent companies or persons. The purpose of the article is to prevent the shifting of profits which should probably have been shown as arising in one country to the other for the purpose of avoiding tax.
Article V provides that the profits from the operation of ships and aircraft shall be taxed only in the country of residence, notwithstanding that part of the profits may arise in another country. This is exactly the same article that is in all the agreements with the other countries, Great Britain and France.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As a matter of interest, what is the reason for that?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that I can give a substantial reason, but it is an agreement. They say, "Well, now, if you do not tax our shipping industry, even if they are doing business over in Canada, we will not tax yours." [DOT]
Article VI confirms Canada's right to take 15 per cent at the source on all income arising in Canada and paid to a resident of Ireland which does not consist of commercial or industrial profit; that is, that in the remission of profits there shall be a deduction at the source of the 15 per cent. In addition, it provides that dividends from a subsidiary to a parent company resident in Ireland are subject to Canadian tax at the rate of 5 per cent. That is by agreement. But you will notice that it is lower than the 15 per cent. Ireland in turn undertakes to exempt from Irish surtax all income arising in Ireland paid to Canadian residents which does not consist of commercial or industrial profit.
Under article VII we exempt copyright royalties.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the minister leaves article VI, may I ask whether he has any figures to indicate where the balance lies on revenue that is to be affected by article VI; that is, revenue as between the two countries. Here we are matching two things that are rather different, the Canadian 15 per cent tax and the Irish surtax on dividends.


James Joseph McCann: I am told we do not have any figures on that, but as a practical solution to the problem it was considered a fair ratio would be a reduction of 15 per cent on profits going to Ireland and 5 per cent on their profits coming to Canada. I would therefore think that the amount of money transferred from Canada to Ireland would be greater than the amount transferred from Ireland to Canada.
Article VII. This article exempts copyright royalties in respect of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, other than those on motion picture films, from taxation in the country at source. That is exactly the same article we have in our agreements with other countries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the minister goes on to the next article I would like to point out that we have a royal commission now sitting on the subject of patents and copyrights, and no doubt there will be some important recommendations forthcoming from it. One cannot anticipate whether they will involve changes in the law respecting copyrights, but there has been in fact a firm difference of opinion as to what the future course of legislation in Canada with regard to copyright should be.
Income Tax
I am wondering if this fact has been taken into consideration in writing an article such as article VII.
The minister has indicated that this article has its counterpart in similar agreements entered into heretofore with other commonwealth countries, but before long we may be facing a situation where the legislative approach to copyright may be undergoing some revision in this house.


James Joseph McCann: Well, Mr. Chairman, this provision is exactly the same as that which we have with other countries, and our present laws are the laws which were taken into consideration when this article of the agreement was drawn. Should there be material changes, I suggest that the agreement could be renegotiated in part if it were thought desirable to make changes in this particular article after we have made any changes in our laws with respect to copyrights.
Article VIII. This article means that a Canadian sent to Ireland to act for the Canadian government and paid by the Canadian government will not be taxed in Ireland, and reciprocally the same will apply to Irishmen coming to Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to ask a question concerning clause 2 of article VIII which reads as follows:
2. The provisions of this article shall not apply to payments in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by either of the contracting governments for purposes of profit.
Let us suppose that there is a crown corporation operating in Ireland. How would that be affected? Is that a governmental function?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed that it would be taxed in the same way as any other commercial organization, Mr. Chairman.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just one moment. The clause reads:
2. The provisions of this article shall not apply to payments in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by either of the contracting governments for purposes of profit.
Am I to take it that you mean that under section 2 of article VIII the words "services rendered" are to be interpreted differently from those same words in article I?


James Joseph McCann: Are you now referring to article VIII?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I am referring to clause 2 of article VIII.


James Joseph McCann: There is a difference there, Mr. Chairman, between governmental functions and commercial functions. An example

Income Tax
of a governmental function would be a member of our Department of Trade and Commerce who is resident in Ireland and performing services there. His remuneration would not be taxable. However, in the case of somebody else who is operating a commercial business, that is a totally different thing and his profits would be taxed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us suppose, for instance, that the Polymer Corporation set up a branch in Ireland. Would you consider that as an ordinary commercial business?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, because the Polymer Corporation is taxable in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But we are now talking about services rendered. Apparently you are saying that under clause 2 a man, such as a trade commissioner, for example, who was in Ireland for the department on a temporary basis, would be exempt whereas an employee of a corporation such as Polymer would not be exempt?


James Joseph McCann: I think probably that would be covered by the next article, but there is a distinction made between governmental officials and people in private business. If we have a trade officer in Dublin who is receiving a yearly salary of $5,000 he is not taxable. However, if he is the manager of the Jones company or any other commercial business and is receiving a yearly salary of $5,000 as manager of that business in Dublin, he is taxable. One is in a commercial business and the other is a government employee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That appears to me to be quite understandable and quite reasonable. A moment ago the minister spoke of a man in a private business, and he also referred to a man working for the Polymer Corporation. When he uses the words "private business" does he mean private business and also any public enterprise or crown enterprise which is operating and showing a profit?


James Joseph McCann: The latter would be taxable because he is in a commercial business. I do not think it could be much clearer, Mr. Chairman.
2. The provisions of this article shall not apply to payments in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by either of the contracting governments for purposes of profit.
Article IX. This article means that an individual from Ireland may perform services in Canada free from Canadian income tax if his stay in Canada does not exceed 183 days during the year and either his compensation is received from a person or corporation resident in Ireland or such compensation does not exceed $5,000. The same rule applies reciprocally with respect to a Canadian

individual who is in Ireland for a temporary period. People who go over there on a temporary basis, who earn less than $5,000 and who are there for less than 183 days are not taxable. This is also true of someone who comes from Ireland to Canada.
Article X. This article exempts from tax at source all pensions, and also any annuities paid under the terms of a contract.
Articles XI and XII. These articles are for the purpose of fostering cultural interests between the two countries. Professors or teachers from one country will be exempt from tax while visiting the other country for a period not exceeding two years. Students and apprentices from one country receiving education or training in the other country will be exempt from tax in that country on payments received from home for maintenance, education or training.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am glad to see that the government has made provision for this which means that it is easier for teachers to exchange, as the term is. I am a believer in teachers from one country going to another. I am interested to see that there is a two-year limit in this. I take it that what is meant there is that if a Canadian teacher goes to Ireland, for the first two years he will be exempt from tax in that country, but after two years I presume he will be subject to such taxes as the Irish Free State may impose. There is a two-year limit there. But I notice there is no time limit with regard to students. I am merely speculating, but I suppose the reason is that in one case you have a salary earner and in the second case you have one who is receiving from home money for his tuition and board and that sort of thing. I am wondering what the position is in connection with a very long stay in the second case, namely in the case of a student.


James Joseph McCann: In the case of a student I presume it would be the length of his course. For instance, if he were going to an Irish university, for the length of that course he is exempt. In addition, he is not a wage earner. This money that is sent over for his maintenance, for his education and for his training is also exempt. In the case of a teacher, he is a wage earner and the time has been limited to two years.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In article XII I notice that, in corroboration of what the minister says, the words used are "is receiving full-time education or training".


James Joseph McCann: Yes; full time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I presume that would mean until graduation, or until completion of the course in which he was then engaged. I presume that is the idea.


James Joseph McCann: 1 think so.
Article XIII. This article provides that the country of residence will give credit for taxes paid in the other country.
Article XIV. This article provides for the exchange of information. The information is restricted to that which is necessary for the carrying out of the agreement and for the prevention of fraud and the avoidance of taxes. I think this is significant. No information is to be exchanged which will disclose any trade secret or trade process. The article provides for consultation between the taxation authorities of the contracting parties, particularly in those cases where it is determined that profits are being shifted from one country to another in order to minimize taxes.
Article XV. The article sets the taxation period in the respective countries to which it will first apply.
Article XVI. This article sets out the requirements necessary to terminate the agreement.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The committee is considering clause 2. Shall the clause carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Commencement and duration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When is it proposed to bring the agreement into effect by proclamation?


James Joseph McCann: As soon as the necessary proceedings have been carried out in Ireland, just as we are carrying them out here. It will be proclaimed and go into effect after that. The date for proclamation is not set.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gather that the intention is to bring it into effect immediately on the exchange of ratifications.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report the bill?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On division.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Next sitting of the house.
Succession Duty SUCCESSION DUTY



AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND IRELAND FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION

James Joseph McCann: the second reading of Bill No. 125, to implement an agreement between Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to succession duty.
He said: This is the fourth convention or agreement to be made with other countries by Canada for the purpose of removing double taxation and preventing fiscal evasion in relation to death duties. The preceding ones were with the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
The principal aims of this agreement are three:	First, exchange of information to
prevent evasion; second, the granting of credits by the country of domicile for duty paid by the same estate on the same assets to the other contracting country; third, the establishment between the countries of agreed rules of situs. The present agreement provides for all these matters, as do the treaties with the United States and the United Kingdom. Indeed, this agreement follows the agreement with the United Kingdom, with minor changes, as for example the elimination from the present agreement of possibilities of extension of its terms to colonies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Agreement approved.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have already said, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me this agreement, as it stands, works an injustice to Ontario and Quebec. I refer particularly to Ontario because Ontario has made a tax agreement, and even then a resident of Ontario is going to be injured. I urge again that this bill should be allowed to stand over until the opinion of the justice department has been obtained on this particular point I am raising.
I suggest again that it is a substantial point. I suggest that my request is entirely reasonable, that no inconvenience of any kind would be suffered if the minister acceded to it, and that it therefore should be done. If the minister will not do so-as apparently he will not-I should like to reiterate that to me this is a most unreasonable proceeding, that I am entitled to have my point explored and not merely to have the general assurance that the minister has given. I suggest that I am entitled to have my point specifically considered and to have an opinion given on it.

Succession Duty
Indeed, if the minister will not consent to that procedure now I certainly will suggest that it should be done before third reading of the bill. If it is not done, I hope there may be others besides myself who will object to this kind of treatment. I consider that it is highhanded. I suggest that my request could easily be granted, and that no embarrassing delay of any kind would be occasioned. Indeed, the more I think about it the more I am unable to understand why the minister will not do as I ask.
That being so, I would ask him to take us through the agreement with regard to succession duty. First of all I notice that he said one of the points on which there was agreement, or one of the points of cooperation between the two governments, was with regard to the exchange of information. I should like to ask the minister if he would give us some information as to just what this exchange of information involves and how it is carried out, with perhaps some anonymous illustrations.


James Joseph McCann: I shall note the suggestion made by the hon. member. If the Minister of Justice does not come into the house between now and the time we finish with this bill, before third reading I will have an opinion from him with reference to the legislation. It should be borne in mind that this is an agreement between Canada and Ireland, not between the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec or any other province and Ireland. Our jurisdiction is limited to those things that we deal with specifically, and one of them of course is succession duties.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And your responsibility extends to the citizens of Ontario as well.


James Joseph McCann: That is right. We accept that responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the minister goes on to deal with the details-


James Joseph McCann: It is very short. What I proposed to do was read the commentary on the different articles and then reply to any questions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was proposing to say a word about the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. I do not think there need be any serious difference of opinion as to what may be certain fundamental functions of the federal government in relation to a matter of this kind, but I do not think the minister is seriously suggesting that he is going to expect the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario to undertake negotiations in this matter directly with the government at Dublin. When the Canadian

government undertakes to enter into negotiations with the government of any country in a case of this kind I should think that surely it is the minimum duty of the Canadian government to take account of the effect of the negotiations and the agreement that may ensue from them upon the provinces, particularly where the provinces are already levying taxes in precisely the same field.
It seems to me this could give rise to serious differences in treatment as between persons whose domicile at the time of death is, for example, in the province of Manitoba and persons whose domicile is in Quebec, in relation to the effect of this type of legislation on Irish taxes and vice versa. Surely there can be some comity in these matters, some consultation, so that when the Canadian representatives enter into negotiations it is possible for them to know what is the desire of the governments of the provinces which are levying income tax, and so that any over-all agreement entered into between the government at Ottawa and the government at Dublin can take account of the fact that in the two largest provinces of our country we have provincial succession duties levied against which an exemption of up to not more than 50 per cent of the Canadian federal succession duty is allowed.
There is nothing novel about what I am proposing or about what the hon. member for Greenwood has been arguing. I well recall that in the Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade of some eight years ago article V bound the Canadian government to undertake certain actions which were actually within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. It had to do with opening the way for trucking in bond. We had that situation here in Canada. The Canadian government entered into an agreement which it had no jurisdiction whatever to fulfil. It went ahead and signed the agreement without reference to the provinces, and only after the agreement was completed did it present this fait accompli to the provinces and asked them to implement by legislation what the Canadian government had undertaken in that agreement.
Having regard to history in such matters as that, I find it very difficult to follow the minister in what I understand to be his argument, that when the federal government of this country undertakes to negotiate with the government at Dublin in relation to certain exemptions it cannot negotiate at the same time on behalf of the two provinces which are imposing taxes in this field. I do not understand that the minister has said that was the subject of a specific inquiry of the Department of Justice. It is one thing to say that the Department of Justice has reviewed

the bill or has reviewed the agreement. Of course the Department of Justice has done that. What it has to say, as I understand it, is that the measure lies within the jurisdiction of parliament.
But that does not touch the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood both on the other measure and again on this one, that surely there is nothing to prevent the negotiators on behalf of the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces concerned and having ascertained the wishes of the provinces in this matter, negotiating an agreement that takes account of and makes provision for their wishes in this matter.


James Joseph McCann: If I may go on for a moment, I was just going to comment on the articles.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I interrupt the minister? Is he remembering my request that he give an explanation about the method of exchange of information? He mentioned that in his statement.


James Joseph McCann: I can give that. The exchange is an exchange of information given on request by one of the contracting parties. For instance, a man who is living in Ontario dies and leaves an estate. The Irish government makes a request of our department and says, "Can you give us some information with respect to the holdings of John Murphy, who was ordinarily a citizen of Ireland but who we understand owned certain property in Canada?". We supply that information in the same way they would supply information if we inquired about a Canadian citizen who might have property in Ireland. Their officials would probably be in a better position to give us the appraisal value of the property than we would be if we in Canada undertook to value that property in Ireland. That is the type of information on which there is an exchange.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister said one thing which prompts a question. Did I correctly infer from what he said that we would use the Irish authorities to make our valuations there?


James Joseph McCann: Not necessarily, but we could do that. They would give us an idea of what the property would be appraised at for tax purposes in their country, or put us in touch with independent appraisers whom we could use.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock. The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Succession Duty
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister do what he did in connection with Bill No. 124, that is explain the articles of the agreement?


James Joseph McCann: I shall follow the procedure we followed in connection with the income tax bill. The articles follow as a schedule to the bill.
Article I is a definition of the duties covered by the agreement.
Article II defines the terms "territory" and "duty" and the definition of other terms is agreed upon.
Article III determines the agreed situs of all kinds of property. In the main it follows the British agreement.
Article IV provides for the continuance of deductions allowed by each country, and establishes that rates will be determined without reference to the property situated outside of the taxing country when that country is taxing on the basis of situs rather than domicile. This provision is common to the United States and United Kingdom agreements.
Article V provides for credits by the country of domicile in respect of duty paid to the other country on the same assets, thus eliminating double taxation.
Article VI provides for the period for refund of duty and claim for credit which is restricted to six years from date of death, as in the British agreement.
Article VII covers the exchange of information between the two governments.
Article VIII provides for bringing the agreement into force on the day of exchange of ratifications and relates it to estates of persons dying on or after that date, or before that date in the calendar year if the estate so elects.
Article IX provides for the agreement to remain in force for not less than three years, and for its renewal.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Commencement and duration.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, before the bill is carried I should like to reiterate that I consider that this agreement is in error, and that it has overlooked entirely the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Nothing has been said to change that view, and I think the course that has been followed is highly unreasonable.
It would have been so easy to have had the matter reviewed by the Department of Justice. It will be some days, I take it, before we reach third reading, and I would hope that if in that period the minister finds

Succession Duty
that I am right, as I think he will, steps will be taken to have this agreement corrected. In any event I wish to reiterate my position. Nothing has been said which seems to indicate in the slightest degree that I was wrong, and indeed what has been said strengthens what I have said. The minister has taken the position that it is not competent for the federal authority to take care of the citizens of Ontario. He argues that it is not competent for the federal authority to act on behalf of Ontario.
The hon. member for Eglinton has exposed the error of that argument in a very clear manner, particularly by his reference to the Geneva agreements of a few years ago. I just wish to reiterate that I believe this agreement is defective and that the bill should not carry.


James Joseph McCann: I am glad my hon. friend is as generous to the Irish as he appears to be. He is probably no better acquainted with the Ontario succession duties act than I am, but I would draw the following to his attention:
Reciprocity-Where estate, legacy or succession duty is paid by an Ontario resident to any jurisdiction which has been designated by the lieutenant governor in council, the duty levied in Ontario shall be reduced by the amount of duty so paid in the foreign jurisdiction which does not exceed the amount of duty levied in Ontario. This allowance is granted whether the other jurisdiction grants similar relief to its residents in respect of Ontario duties or not, though formerly it was granted only if the foreign jurisdiction reciprocated. The jurisdictions designated by regulation 33 include Great Britain and Northern Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Eire, Quebec, the District of Columbia, and the states of the United States of America. Regulation 33 was first established by order in council on June 21, 1946. It is now incorporated into the consolidated regulations.
I think that that ought to clear the first point. Ontario now has a reciprocal arrangement whereby they write off one another's succession duties as between Northern Ireland, Eire and Ontario.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the main what the minister has read seems to indicate that Ontario has a reciprocal arrangement, but that does not in the least affect the argument that this agreement should have had regard to the position of Ontario. The mere fact that there is legislation in Ontario so far as I can see does not meet the situation. The hon. member for Eglinton reminds me that nothing has been said which relieves the situation which I have described in Quebec.


James Joseph McCann: I must disagree with my hon. friend, because I think that is covered entirely. It is satisfactory to Ontario, which has made no representations to the federal

government asking that specific consideration be given in the matter of reciprocity having to do with succession duties.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report the bill?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On division.
Bill reported.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1955 and 1956, subject to certain modifications.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


George Prudham: On January 27 last, as reported on page 601 of Hansard, I made a preliminary announcement on the government's intention in regard to the continuation of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I do not know that I can add anything about the principle of the bill we propose to introduce. Hon. members can refer to that statement for details of the government's intentions.
I should like to make a few remarks by way of background giving reasons why we are introducing this legislation at this time. The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was inaugurated in 1948 for a period of three years to assist Canadian gold mine operators in meeting greatly increased costs of production. Unlike other primary mine products, there had been no compensating increase in the price of gold. This measure was designed primarily to assist the high-cost or marginal mines to continue in operation over a difficult period and to maintain their dependent communities. Because of the high cost of production of gold, in relation to a fixed price, the gold mines made strenuous efforts to increase their efficiency and to keep their costs at a minimum.
In this they have been very successful, but in spite of these efforts the upward trend of cost has continued. This trend has been aggravated by the appreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar which, so far as gold mines are concerned, means that they receive less for their product. The recent change in the exchange rate will be welcomed by the

industry, I am sure. When the act expired in 1950 it was renewed, and has been continued to the end of 1954.
In the formula as originally designed there were two parts. The first was the rate of assistance. The second factor was the part of production to which the rate of assistance applied. These two factors have, from time to time, been modified to meet current conditions.
It is an advantage to the gold mines, in order to allow adequate planning, that the extension should be for a longer term than one year. As the economic conditions which necessitated the passing of the act continue to exist, it is now proposed to extend the act for 1955 and 1956 on a somewhat reduced basis.
As indicated to this house, the proposal to extend the act is based on a new formula which still maintains the two main factors on a revised basis. Under the new formula the rate of assistance is two-thirds of the amount by which the average cost of producing an ounce of gold from the mine during the year exceeds $26.50 per ounce. But the rate paid per ounce will in no event exceed $12.33.	,
In the old formula the number of production ounces to which assistance applied was dependent on a base year which had been defined by the act. The new proposal does away with the base year. The rate of assistance will now apply to two-thirds of the total production of the current calendar year. This in effect simplifies the assistance calculations and maintains an equitable distribution of the payments to the mines receiving assistance.
It will be noted that the rate of assistance will not exceed $12.33 per ounce. This means in the application of the formula that the maximum allowable cost for the production of an ounce of gold under which payments will be made must not exceed $45.00. This is the same maximum allowable cost which was in effect in 1953 and 1954. In the new formula raising the factor in the rate of assistance from $18.00 to $26.50 makes some of the lower cost mines ineligible for assistance and distributes a proportionately greater part of the payments to the higher cost mines.
It is hoped that by this distribution of payments the higher cost mines will be able to continue and employment will be maintained. Payments under the act vary according to the cost in each mine of producing an ounce of gold. The new formula has been designed to aid the communities which are dependent on gold mines for their existence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a rather fragmentary statement we have heard from the minister tonight. One might have hoped that he
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act would say something by way of a review of the operations under the act for at least the past year. As hon. members are aware, the last report available on the administration of the act is that for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954. The house has not been told this evening what the payments have amounted to thus far in the first eleven months of the fiscal year which will end on March 31 next; nor have we been told how many mines have been in receipt of assistance; nor have we any information in the minister's statement as to how many mines are still in production because of the assistance received under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Briefly what the resolution proposes is a continuation for the present year and for the year 1956 of the assistance provided by this act, but on a reduced basis. Better half a loaf than no bread, of course; and I am sure the house-


George Prudham: In the discussion on the resolution we are dealing with the principle. I shall give those details later.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the committee will be glad to receive them. But I thought the minister's opening statement would have been a good place for him to give the house the benefit of a review of those operations on which statistical information is not yet available in report form.
One will wish, of course, to reserve until the bill has been made available some of the comments one might wish to make, but I am quite certain hon. members will approve the proposal to extend the life of the act. At the same time I think one must continue to express regret that it should be necessary for the government to bring forward this type of legislation.
Subsidy is no solution to the problem. Subsidy is not a satisfactory basis upon which to build the survival of any industry. It is not satisfactory so far as the taxpayer is concerned, and it is not a healthy condition for the industry itself. No matter what the formula may be, there are bound to be inequities in it and in its application. The minister is proposing tonight that there should be a revision of the formula to be applied. Well, this is going to mean, of course, that for some mines there will be substantially less assistance to be had under this act. Every time you introduce a subsidy, Mr. Chairman, and set forth the formula upon which it is to be applied, you create the necessity of drawing the line somewhere. There will be some inside and some outside it, and that cannot be regarded as a healthy state of affairs. Similarly every time the
1580	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act formula is changed some are hurt by the change, while it may be that some are helped by it.
This is not the kind of solution the industry has sought, but it is necessary as long as a proper solution is not forthcoming. Fundamentally, the reason there must be a subsidy until such time as the government brings forward an adequate solution is that the problem of the gold mines has been created largely by governments. I do not say by the Canadian government, although it has participated in the action of which I speak. But it is a problem created by governments in general. It is the problem of the fixed price for the product of the gold mining industry. And because the Canadian dollar first of all rose to par and then later to a premium in relation to the United States dollar, the value of the product, measured in terms of its price in the United States, instead of rising has actually been falling for some years. The governments have set the fixed price, and at the same time costs of production have been rising.
It is not too much to say, sir, that now, and for some years past, this important gold mining industry has been languishing. Many mines have been closed. The communities which have depended upon the gold mining industry have suffered in consequence. Development operations and the search for new mines, of course, were arrested years ago. No Canadian, in my submission, can contemplate what has happened to the gold mining industry without very serious misgivings.
There were days, and we would do well to remind ourselves of them, sir, when this country owed much to the gold mining industry, and when indeed that industry contributed as much as any other single factor to the survival of the Canadian economy, during the depression days. We always had a market for our product. It was a profitable market in those days; it is not a very profitable market today. We hope that depression days will never come back, but it would be a bold man or woman who would say that the day will not come when we shall need to rely upon the gold mining industry again to bring health and strength to the Canadian economy.
This measure is no solution. I can only describe it as I described it on a former occasion, as an artificial, temporary, stop-gap, hand-to-mouth palliative. It is necessary in order to assure the survival of some mines. It has not assured the survival of many of the mines that were in production when it came into effect. As a matter of fact, sir, if you will look at page 10 of the report on the administration of this act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, you will see that from


a maximum of 122 in 1949 the number of mines which have been in receipt of aid under this act has shown a steady decline. In 1953 that number had been reduced to 70. What the figure is for 1954 I hope the minister will tell us; but whatever that figure may be it is quite evident that, in view of the revision of the formula, the number of mines which will receive assistance under this act in 1955 and 1956 will show a further reduction.
It may be that some of the mines which have been in receipt of aid, and which will not receive aid in 1955 and 1956, are not marginal mines and are not going to be compelled to abandon their operations. But, sir, that table on page 10 points a lesson which is worthy of the attention of all hon. members. The number of producing gold mines has shrunken in this period, and that shrinkage does pose serious questions and does create serious dangers, not simply for the communities that are dependent upon the gold mining industry but to a substantial degree for the whole Canadian economy.
The minister has stated that, with a view to giving assistance to the industry in looking ahead, it is now proposed that the subsidy aid scheme should be extended for two years. That, of course, is better than one. It at least lets those mines which are dependent upon this type of aid know that the aid will be available for another 22 months. But, sir, that is not enough. If the house approves this measure and the bill which is to follow, it cannot assume that it has discharged its responsibility for another two years. It is the duty of the government, it is the duty of the house, to be searching and searching resolutely for something much more satisfactory than a stop-gap measure of this kind.
What is required is a solution. It cannot be this measure. More is required than is to be found here. We have not heard from the government one word indicating what is its policy with reference to the search for a solution, or what its conception of the solution is. Is the government's conception of the proper solution an increase in the price of gold? I refer to the statement made by Mr. Abbott on April 13, 1953, when this measure was last under discussion in the house. At page 3797 of Hansard of that year, he said:
I have repeatedly stated In this house. Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian government, as the second largest gold producer in the world, would be delighted if the price of gold were increased.
Apparently the government, at least two years ago, approved of an increase in the price of gold. What is the government's position today? Does the government now, in

1955, still approve of an increase in the price of gold? That is my first question to the minister.
Second, if the government does approve of an increase in the price of gold, what is it doing to seek such an increase? We know that the increase in the price of gold must await decision or at least concurrence on the part of the United States government, because it is the greatest purchaser of gold in the world. It is the assured market for gold. Then what is the Canadian government doing, if it still believes there ought to be an increase in the price of gold, to urge upon the United States government that increase? I ask that question of the minister.
Again, from time to time, representations have been made to the government by the provincial ministers of mines in this regard. I ask the minister what position he has taken, what position the government here has taken in the face of representations coming from the department of mines of the provincial governments in this regard.
We are hearing much talk about the possibility of the restoration of convertibility of exchange. There have been intimations from different quarters that the return of convertibility may be closer than some had thought. Well, the return of convertibility is something we should all be seeking, all be hoping for, because of the substantial benefits that convertibility of exchange would contribute to the world's trading relations. It has special interest for Canada because of the extent to which we rely upon the market in the United Kingdom for the disposal of our large exportable surplus of food.
In the interests of convertibility, let us realize that gold is going to play, gold is bound to play, an important part in any plans that are made either by the sterling bloc or by the free world in general with a view to restoring either immediately or by stages, either on a partial basis or on a complete basis, convertibility of exchange. Then what is the government doing in the way of encouraging that restoration of convertibility and seeing that gold, in which this country is so much interested, plays its proper and important role in the restoration of convertibility?
Again, this matter being of such importance not only to Canada but to South Africa and to other parts of the commonwealth and empire, I ask, did the Prime Minister embrace the opportunity at the recent conference of prime ministers of the commonwealth to raise this question?
We have had only the most fragmentary and vague reports about what was done at that conference. Was no consideration given
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to economic problems? Was no consideration given to this important matter of the restoration of convertibility? Together with South Africa, did Canada show its keen interest in seeking for gold, and for gold producers, recognition of their problems and a better price for their product, in developing policies within the commonwealth which will improve the position of the gold producing countries? When I say for the commonwealth I mean principally South Africa and Canada. Therefore I ask, what was done by the government at the prime ministers' conference in this regard? Was any attempt made by the Prime Minister representing Canada, a great gold producer, to seek concerted policies which will assist the gold producing countries of the commonwealth?
Finally, sir, let us all recognize that while the gold standard does not exist today, and while the place occupied by gold in relation to currencies may not be what it once was, nevertheless gold occupies a vital place in all the world's trading and exchange relations today.
It is an undeniable fact that all the countries of the world still want gold. That desire is not confined to the free world alone. Russia, itself a large gold producer, has apparently been seeking the means of increasing its supply of gold. Let us not think for one moment that gold has lost any of its value in the eyes of the nations. All the nations still place gold in a position of first importance as the medium of international exchange. The stability which has existed in our trading relations and in the exchange relations between countries owes more to gold than many people today realize.
Amid all the exchange fluctuations in the world today the fact that gold is still being sought by all countries and is still being bought by the United States at a fixed price, and the fact that that country is prepared to go on buying all the gold that is offered, has contributed much stability to the world. Indeed, in that respect gold has been the one stable reference point in the exchange relations of the countries of the world. Gold is still an important hedge for us as well as for other nations against depression. It is the basis of much of the confidence in trading relations which exist in the world. It is still the principal international standard and the principal international medium of exchange.
Let us then recognize its importance; and for Canada, as a leading gold producer in the world, let us realize its special importance as undergirding and strengthening the Canadian economy. While the present measure must be supported, let us not be content with temporary stop-gap policies of this kind, but
1582	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act let us see to it that we apply our best efforts and utmost intelligence to seeking a satisfactory long-term solution. I hope we will hear more about this policy from the government tonight.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, since I will have the opportunity of speaking at greater length when the bill comes up for second reading, I intend to be very brief at this stage of the proceedings.
May I say to the hon. members that this resolution is of concern to a large number of Canadians throughout the country. First, there are miners, some 20,000 of them, who depend solely on the gold mining industry for their livelihood and that of their families. In addition, there are many farmers and settlers who are established on lands that would not be worth tilling today were it not for that industry. In addition, businessmen have invested their savings in firms that would have to close their doors should that industry come to a standstill. Moreover, a large number of Canadians, who are employed in numerous industries scattered throughout the country, are benefiting indirectly from gold mining operations. They are interested in this industry and they should be given consideration.
Of course, this resolution is of particular interest to the 130,000 Canadians living in cities, towns and mining centres, some 30 in number in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that we should not forget that the livelihood of many farmers and settlers established on lands in the vicinity of mining centres in the provinces I have just mentioned, depends almost exclusively [DOT] on the gold mining industry. Those people are greatly concerned because the survival of this industry is of vital importance to them.
In the county of Villeneuve alone, which I have the honour to represent in this house, 15 gold mines are in operation. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that our people were very happy to learn that this legislation was to be extended for a further two-year period. In fact, the 160,000 people in northwestern Quebec were confident that the government would extend this Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. They were not disappointed and are thankful to the government for all that has been done to help the development of our natural resources and the progress of our mining districts.


I have received a number of letters and resolutions from municipal councils, school boards or chambers of commerce of my constituency. Copies of these documents have been forwarded to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). All those requests take national interest into account and deal with the problem in an objective way.
In order that the importance of this industry to those whose livelihood is directly dependent upon it can be readily understood, I could hardly do better than to quote certain passages from a resolution sent to me by the town council of Malartic.
Here, Mr. Chairman, we have a town of 7,000 people, with highly efficient municipal services, and where schools have a capacity of 2,000 pupils. Now the only industry here is that of gold mining.
Here are the words used by the members of the town council:
The gold mining industry has played a very important part in the history of this country; it has contributed and continues to contribute to a very large extent to the development of our natural resources.
For the past six years the industry has suffered a great deal from the fact that the price of its product has been maintained at pre-war levels and the situation, far from improving, seems to be getting worse.
The gold mining industry provides permanent employment for more than 20,000 people who are directly employed by it. Moreover it provides work for a large number of other Canadians in agriculture, the lumber trade or manufacturing. If too many gold mines were forced to suspend operations, through lack of adequate revenue, this would materially contribute to an increase in unemployment.
The assistance given under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to that industry has been of material help in enabling many mines to stay in operation. Without it, several would be forced to close down.
At the end of its petition, the municipal council of Malartic expresses the following wish:
We ask that this act be extended for at least one more year.
Representatives of the municipal councils, the school boards, and the chambers of commerce of the other municipalities in my riding have expressed similar views, and all concur in the belief that the closing down of our gold mines would create a great deal of unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, those letters, those resolutions to which I have directed your attention, speak for themselves. They are clear and to the point. They make us grasp the national

importance of the industry and, in addition, they prove that the gold mining industry is a source of steady employment and that, therefore, it must be kept in a healthy condition. They represent the views of experienced businessmen, who know what they want, who are interested above all in the welfare of the communities whose business they manage, and who are anxious to plead the case of all those who live in mining communities across Canada. Their arguments can hardly be gainsaid and I ask the committee to take them into consideration.
I wish to congratulate the minister for giving the house in advance, on January 27 last, the amendments which the government intended to introduce to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. It was very important for the industry and all those interested in it to know as soon as possible what the outlook was.
As far as 1 am concerned, I was happy to know that the benefits of the new act were to apply to the production of the years 1955 and 1956. On the other hand, I am somewhat disappointed to see that those benefits will be reduced, perhaps a little too much in some cases.
On the basis of the new formula, it is obvious that the average rate of assistance, per ounce, will be greatly reduced. Mines for which production costs per ounce amount to $26.50 or less will be completely excluded. On the other hand, those for which production costs per ounce come to $40 or more will get greater assistance.
However, we are sorry to see that several gold mines, whose production costs per ounce are between $30 and $35, are due for a considerable reduction of their net income, which is already low. The operators of a good number of these mines would like to be in a position to pay still higher salaries to their employees, and they are anxious to speed up their exploration work in order to improve the situation and thus reduce costs of production, but I doubt very much that in such circumstances they will find it possible to do so.
We should not forget, Mr. Chairman, that the situation of the gold mines, instead of improving in the course of last year, has deteriorated.
Since the industry is subject to the rising value of the Canadian dollar in comparison with the United States dollar, the price paid by the mint for gold has constantly decreased. For a full realization of the prejudice suffered by the gold mines, one only has to know that the price paid for an ounce of gold during the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 was
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act $34.28, $34.45 and $34.11, respectively. For the first month of the current year, this price was about $33.80. Indeed, this reduction in the price of gold, caused by the rise of the Canadian dollar, is bad for the industry and it is all the more serious because operators can do nothing about it.
This new formula for assistance to gold mines is obviously intended to cut down government expenditures in this field. However, production costs being still very high, I am afraid that too great a reduction in the price paid some operators will hinder progress in several mines and will even mean a reduction of their ore reserves.
I realize that it is difficult to find a uniform formula to meet all requirements. However, if the proposed formula proved inadequate and if, as a result, the existence of some gold mines was threatened, because of insufficient income, I am confident that the government would agree to review it.
(Text):


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the committee at the resolution stage of this legislation. What I have to say on this subject I shall reserve until the legislation is before us. At this stage I merely want to point out that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is an extremely important act in our general economy. The very fact that by the end of the fiscal year 1954 we had paid out to the gold mines in six years approximately $80 million in subsidies, and that in the estimates for the year 1954-55 we have an item of approximately $16 million for that purpose, in itself indicates the proportions which our subsidizing of the gold mining industry has reached over the years.
I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Eglinton that the payment of these subsidies is only a temporary stopgap, and is by no means a solution to the problem with which the gold mining industry confronts us in this country. In the introduction to the report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the year ended March 31, 1952, we were told that the act was designed primarily to assist the high-cost or marginal mines to continue in operation over a difficult period and to maintain their dependent communities.
What has become evident over the years, of course, is that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act has been subsidizing other than marginal mines. Since the inception of this act the bulk of our subsidies has gone to mines that cannot, by any stretch of the
1584	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act imagination, be considered to be marginal mines. Nor has the need ended with the particular period we had in mind in 1952. That period of difficulty is still with us, and there is little prospect that the end of the gold mining industry's difficulties is yet in sight. Helpful as the subsidies are to the gold mining industry and to some extent, I suppose, to the communities concerned with gold mining, they certainly are not the answer to the problems with which we are confronted in the matter of gold mining. More far-reaching measures than providing for the payment of annual subsidies are needed to solve those problems.
I am not sure that an increase in the price of gold, as the hon. member for Eglinton suggested, would be the answer to those problems at all. When the price of gold was raised in the 1930's from $20.67 an ounce, I think it was, to $35 an ounce, the social problems connected with the gold mining industry continued. About all that happened when the price of gold was raised was that instead of being satisfied with ore which yielded one-third of an ounce of gold for every ton, we proceeded to mill ore from which we could extract as little as one-quarter of an ounce per ton. That was the one big advance brought about by the rise in the price of gold in the thirties. If tomorrow the price of gold were raised to $50 or $60 an ounce, what would most likely happen is that we would proceed to mine and mill still lower grades of ore, ore that would possibly give us much less than a quarter of an ounce of gold per ton.
There is no assurance whatever that the social problems connected with gold mining would be solved by a simple rise in the price of gold. As I indicated, much more far-reaching measures are needed to correct the social ills of the gold mining industry, and when the bill is before us I shall take advantage of that opportunity to discuss what in my opinion are some of these far-reaching measures.


Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Chairman, members representing constituencies in which important gold mining operations are carried on hoped that the government's cost-aid program would be continued at least without reduction, and I am no exception. But the government with its special information and with all the evidence before it felt bound to bring in a somewhat modified version of emergency assistance.
As far as gold mining operations in the Yukon are concerned, the picture is a mixed one. The new formula continues federal assistance to the industry on the basis of giving a greater measure of help to the mines


which need help the most. In other words when a mine's cost of operating is low, assistance will be on a reduced scale. In the case of high-cost mines, in order to keep as many of them as possible in operation the aid given under E.G.M.A. will be relatively higher.
Possibly the most important feature of the proposed new bill is the extension of the cost aid over the period of the next two years. Making the policy apply over two years instead of one will enable the gold mines to plan their operations with greater assurance. The two-year provision carries into effect an important recommendation in the brief submitted last fall to the federal government by the Canadian Metal Mining Association.
I believe it would serve a useful purpose, Mr. Chairman, to consider briefly the history and intention of this cost-aid legislation. First of all, what was the basic reason for introducing E.G.M.A. in 1948? It was not designed as a cure for all the ills of the industry. It was not intended particularly as a method of increasing production. Rather it was planned, as I understand it, to provide emergency help over a difficult and, it was hoped, limited period of time. However, the conditions that compelled the introduction of E.G.M.A. have persisted since 1948. Some Canadians have the mistaken idea that because most nations have dropped the gold standard, gold is no longer a useful metal. Actually when the nations adopted the device of managed instead of gold-based currencies, gold became more than ever a servant of man rather than his master.
The value of most managed currencies is still expressed in terms of gold content. The real strength of gold is in its universal acceptance as an international means of payment. It is in effect a lubricant which helps to keep the mechanism of international trade functioning smoothly. For example, Canada maintains reserves in the form of gold to meet obligations that may arise from time to time in our foreign trade accounts. If we buy more from any country than we sell to that country, then settlement or adjustment is arranged in gold.
But I regard the gold mining industry as essential to Canadian progress and prosperity for other reasons as well. A healthy gold mining industry in this country means a healthy mining industry generally and a stronger, richer Canada. The industry provides employment as well as important markets for machinery and supplies. More than that, gold mining is the mainspring of the entire mining economy, especially in the north. It is the pioneer industry of the north, and much of Canada's future growth is bound up in northern development.

The search for gold seems to spur the search for other minerals as well. Directly and indirectly the gold mining industry has contributed much to the solid growth of the entire nation. I sincerely hope that, even with the modification proposed, cost aid will enable gold mining operations to be carried on, thus sustaining the northern communities which its operations have been mainly instrumental in founding and which still depend on the industry for their survival. The recent devaluation of the Canadian dollar in terms of the United States dollar will provide a substantial benefit to our gold mining operations which will offset in some degree the reduction in gold mining assistance.
Lest we forget the contribution of the Klondike to Canada's progress and prosperity, I want to again remind the house that it was gold from the Klondike at the turn of the century that started Canada on her twentieth century era of advance and development. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is keenly interested in proposals to promote Canada's mineral development generally, and I hope more especially in those fields which may be effective in encouraging greater gold and other mining activity in the northern territories.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without referring again briefly to the loss the house suffered in the death of my predecessor, Rodney Adamson, whose great ability in the mining field was very well known to the house. I cannot speak as an expert in this field in the way he could, but I think I can take a real good look at the problems confronting our mining industry today. In my opinion we must look far beyond the boundaries of our own constituencies as we assess those problems.
It may come as a surprise that the member for York West should be taking part in this discussion. I may say to the hon. member for the Yukon that I travelled in his constituency as recently as last summer, and also in the Northwest Territories. Everywhere I went I was impressed with the fact that we cannot have adequate exploration and development of those territories without the constant search for gold and other minerals. I look upon this aid to gold producers more as a means of developing our country rather than, as was indicated by the hon. member for York South, a means of helping particular investors in this type of proposition. It is not only the particular territory that is developed; the benefits go as far back as Toronto. We feel the benefit of the constant searching for new fields to conquer.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
If we go back to the debates of 1948 we find a large mass of statistics which prove that almost every section of the community benefits from the money expended in this type of development, no matter in what part of the country it may be carried on. It should be remembered that many millions of dollars are spent in bringing a mine into production. Those dollars are spread over almost every conceivable type of industrial enterprise, and then later on there is the investment in the necessary labour to carry on production.
I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton that it is surprising there has not been a more thorough search for a permanent solution to this problem. In 1948 there was an indication that the change in the value of the Canadian dollar was one reason why this situation confronted the producer. I am wondering if that is not one line of attack which the government might take in order to change a temporary solution into a more permanent one.
It is even more surprising that this type of assistance, even on a temporary basis, has been reduced in the face of the deteriorating situation in connection with employment in this country. Surely this is not an aggressive way in which to meet falling employment. At this particular time there is indication that even a few more mines may find it impossible to carry on with the assistance they are now receiving.
The measure, as far as it goes on a temporary basis, is one that will benefit every section of the community whether mines are to be found within its borders or not.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for York South has said, we in this group support this measure because we believe it is necessary for the well-being of communities where gold mines are situated. There are many thousands of miners and their families who are dependent upon the gold mining industry, and naturally we support the measure.
I rise to point out to the government that apparently they do not hesitate to provide for the support of a commodity which economically has very little value. They do not hesitate to support a commodity like gold to the extent of large sums of money, but when some of us suggest that subsidies be paid for the support of other commodities we are met with considerable opposition in this house, as well as many editorials in the press to the effect that subsidies as such are bad and should not be supported.
In his statement the minister indicated that since this act was passed in 1948 the cost of mining gold has gone up, and therefore this
1586	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act measure would have to be continued. I point out to him that the cost of producing many other commodities has gone up, and no steps are being taken to support them. I have particularly in mind the producers of eggs, the producers of dairy products and the poultry producers. This year the government reduced the freight subsidy on feed grains, which I suggest was of greater economic value than this subsidy.
Surely if the government is prepared to sponsor a measure like this, which I support, it should not hesitate to support other industries which are of at least equal value. I do not think the government is making any comparable move to support our coal mining industry, even though it may be a product that is becoming-


William Alfred Robinson: I have followed the hon. member for several minutes and have hesitated to interrupt, but 1 think he is a little far afield from the principle of this resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sticking very close to the matter of subsidies which is part and parcel of this measure. I am suggesting to the government that what they are doing for the gold mining industry they should be considering doing for the coal mining industry, which I suggest is of even greater importance. If one looks at the subsidies which have been paid to the gold mining industry-


George Prudham: The hon. member is out of order, and he is also getting away from the facts. We have been supporting the coal industry for 30 years.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not mind interruptions but I suggest that when I am out of order, Mr. Chairman, you call me to order. If the minister will look at his last annual report he will see that the subsidies paid to the gold mining industry are very substantial indeed. The figures are approximately as follows:
1948		 $10,500,000
1949		 12,500,000
1950		 9,000,000
1951		 10,700,000
1952		 10,800,000
1953		 11,700,000
The 1953 figure is the actual cash outlay, which is just 80 per cent of the estimated final cost to the treasury, which would make the 1953 subsidy to the gold mining industry a total of $14,600,000. The grand total for the 6 years is $68J million.
I have noticed editorial comments in many of our leading daily newspapers from time to time, very few if any of which object to this subsidy; but these same newspapers in the same editorial columns will set up a howl just as soon as the government suggests spending a fraction of this sum by way of subsidy for TMr. Argue.]


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there is a considerable amount of information we should like to have from the minister. He may have something to say by way of comment on some of the remarks made in committee. A number of questions were put to him, and I presume he will answer them now.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eglinton did ask some questions, and made some statements with which I entirely agree. First of all I wish to thank hon. members who have spoken indicating their support of this resolution.
The hon. member for Eglinton has referred to the fact that the purchase of gold by the United States government has had a stabilizing influence on the industry. There is no doubt about that. True, the price probably is not as high as the Canadian industry needs; nevertheless, were it not for the fact that the United States is willing to purchase gold there is no doubt the industry would be much worse off than it is today.
Questions have been asked as to what the government has done to influence the United States to raise the price of gold. I have not been present at international conferences, but I do know the matter has been discussed frankly with the United States government. On one occasion I had the privilege of talking to the President of the United States and asking him very pertinent questions in this connection. He cited many arguments pro and con, and ended his remarks by saying, "My advice to you is, don't make any mistakes in a hurry." I do not know what one can take from that remark; but I can assure you if we thought the United States was going to raise the price of gold by several dollars within the next few months we would not have introduced emergency gold mining assistance for a two-year period.

I do not know what other questions my hon. friend would like to have answered. I made a few notes as he was speaking. I agree that the gold mining industry is a stabilizing influence in a time of depression, and makes a great contribution to the development of our country. Until recent years it was the main incentive to take prospectors and developers into the wilderness to help roll back the frontier northward, to give our country depth as well as breadth.
In recent years other minerals perhaps more spectacular-and I am thinking particularly of uranium-have been replacing gold as the main incentive. But gold is still important. It is a commodity that has a ready market, so long as the United States is prepared to buy it. We do not have to send salesmen abroad to sell it. Gold has great value in maintaining our exchange balance with the United States and other countries. The gold mining industry employs between 18,000 and 19,000 people. It is a great consumer of raw products, products of the farm, products of our steel industry and of our forests. Many communities are entirely dependent upon gold mines. These people are producing a valuable product for Canada, the sale of which provides funds to buy from other countries goods required by Canadians. We believe the gold mining industry should be maintained, and that is why we are introducing this emergency gold mining assistance measure. We are hopeful that a permanent solution will develop.
The industry has done a great deal to help itself. They have reduced their operating costs and are increasing the production of gold per man day. I believe they are doing everything possible to put their own industry in order, and that is one good reason why they deserve further assistance. The amount we propose to pay in the next two years is considerably less than what the 1954 payments will be.
Under the proposal no mine with costs below $26.50 will receive assistance. I do not think many hon. members would argue that they should. Previously the number of ounces to which the rate of assistance applied was dependent upon a base year, which the mine had the privilege of choosing. Now the base year has been abolished and payment will be made on a basis of two-thirds of current production. We think that is a fair way of applying the assistance.
Some of the mining associations and several individual mines have been in communication with us since the announcement was made, and they believe the proposal we are now putting forward is a fair one, although some of them have expressed the wish that there was a little more money in it.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are some other points on which the minister was asked to give information. I wonder if he would begin by giving the required information regarding the administration of the act for the year 1954. Perhaps it would be convenient to give us that information under the headings used in the schedule at page 10 of the report. He could begin by giving the number of mines assisted.


George Prudham: I would be very pleased to give all this information on second reading of the bill. However, just to put my hon. friend straight, the information at page 10 represents only nine months of the year. These current reports are usually out of date until some time during the following year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not agree that second reading of the bill is the proper place to give information of this kind. Surely the function the resolution preceding a money bill is intended to fulfil is to provide information for the debate on second reading of the bill. Surely the minister has that kind of information before him. Can he not tell us the number of mines that received assistance in 1954 and the amount paid? The minister will have that information for at least ten months.


George Prudham: I would be glad to give that information on second reading. It will be just as useful then as it is now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry to disagree with the minister on a matter where I believe co-operation is required. This is the time at which we seek information which may be of assistance in the debate on second reading. We will have to decide whether at that stage we will proceed on a proven factual basis, or whether we may dispense with some discussion that may become unnecessary in the light of information given at this stage.
This is a simple matter. Surely we can have from the minister the number of mines now enjoying assistance. I drew attention earlier to the fact that the number of mines receiving assistance under the act has shown a steady and unbroken decline since 1949. I would like to know if that decline has continued in 1954.


George Prudham: To the best of my knowledge no mines were closed during the year. In the previous year some mines were on the free market. They are now all back under gold mining assistance. As to the actual number, while I do not have that information with me at the moment I would be pleased to table it before second reading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister at that time give us such information as is available to date? I appreciate that the operating year
1588	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is not yet complete; but will he give us information, so far as it is complete, under the headings as set out in the schedule at page 10 of the report, to which I referred?


George Prudham: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next question I asked, Mr. Chairman, which I think the minister has not clearly dealt with, was this. I referred to the statement of the government's position at the time of the last debate on this question when, on April 13, 1953, Mr. Abbott said, as reported at page 3797 of Hansard:
I have repeatedly stated in this house, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian government, as the second largest gold producer in the world, would be delighted if the price of gold were increased.
I ask whether that is still the government's position?


George Prudham: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, that I would be delighted, and I am sure my colleagues share that opinion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The other question I asked which has not been answered was whether at the recent conference of commonwealth prime ministers, the Prime Minister had raised this question, or whether it had been discussed there and, if so, what he sought to achieve at that conference in the way of concerting policies which would assist in the use of gold, or policies which would have the effect of aiding Canadian gold producers?


George Prudham: A day or two after the Prime Minister returned from London I had to leave the house for about a week. I have had no conversation with him as to whether anything was said about gold. I would suggest that the Prime Minister make any statement about his experiences at the London conference and what took place there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the importance of this subject I think we should know.


Jean Lesage: You ask the Prime Minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the Prime Minister were here while we are discussing this question I would be glad to ask him. If any other ministers have the information I think it would be of assistance to the committee, and would save us time in the end if we could have that information now.


Walter Edward Harris: Surely you have been promised that for Thursday. Time was arranged for a debate on external affairs on Thursday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question is a little more specific, Mr. Chairman. My question was, was there any discussion at the prime ministers' conference on the subject of gold?


Walter Edward Harris: Would that not be the time to get the answer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not at all clear as to whether the statement we may expect from the Prime Minister is going to be specific on this question. If we do not receive anything more specific from the Prime Minister as to the agenda that was discussed at that conference than we had from him before he went there as to what he then proposed to discuss, we are not going to come out of that debate with very much. I asked the simple question as to whether this matter had been discussed at the prime ministers' conference and, if so, what had been done or proposed by our Prime Minister as to concerting policies which will be of benefit to Canada as a leading gold producer? If the minister has not that information, if his colleagues now present in the committee do not feel at liberty to give that information, I will ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if, in case the Prime Minister does not give that information in the debate to be commenced on Thursday, which was referred to by the Minister of Finance, he himself will be prepared, when he moves second reading of the bill to follow this resolution, to give us that information.


George Prudham: I shall be pleased to bring this to the attention of the Prime Minister.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister give the committee the effect of this change in the emergency gold mining assistance on the gold mines of British Columbia? I notice from his report that in the designated year, 1948, there were 23 mines in that province receiving assistance, but in the year 1953 the number had dropped to seven because many of the mines had shut down. I believe that figure is now down to four.
The gold mining men of the province were very much upset about the changes in this plan. For instance, there was a meeting of the mining association of British Columbia around the end of January. It was claimed at that meeting that there would be a loss of from $200,000 to $300,000 to those four mines, the only remaining mines eligible for assistance. They were Pioneer, Bralorne, Cariboo Gold Quartz and Kelowna Mines Hedley Limited. One of the men is reported as saying:
It means we will not get certain money we formerly got. There will be no gold exploration in British Columbia.
And of course the exploration angle is extremely important. Other paragraphs indicate that members were critical of the new gold subsidy formula because it penalizes efficiency, and because it raises the danger

Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
that low grade ore would likely be bypassed and might not be recoverable in the future. I quote:
"I guess it will take hard times again before gold gets a break," said one mining man.
"They are not closing us down but they are putting another nail in our coffin," said Mel O'Brien.


George Prudham: He is quite all right.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. O'Brien is one of the outstanding gold miners of the country. I think he is the general manager of Bralorne. Will the minister tell the committee what the effect of this new plan will be on the gold mines in British Columbia?


George Prudham: I expect that every gold mine operator in the country knows exactly how it affects his mine, but I do not propose to go into details of that kind here. We do not think the new formula we are now proposing will result in the closing of any mines. If they close it will be for other reasons. The mines with costs below $26.50 will be able to stand on their own feet. The money this proposal will make available to the mines will assist those with costs above $26.50. We do not think any mines will have to close because of this new formula. In previous years some of the mines had a decided advantage because they had the privilege of choosing a low-base year, which gave them a greater proportion of the payments than others. This new proposal puts them all on the same footing. It is payable on two-thirds of current production.
The hon. member spoke of Mr. O'Brien. He is a rugged individualist and I have a great admiration for him. He is a great fighter, and is fighting for his own company and for the industry. My opinion is that his mines will not close because of this new formula.


Howard Charles Green: I take it from the minister's remarks on this resolution that it is not expected this assistance will result in the opening of any mines.


George Prudham: No. We do not think the formula will be an encouragement to open new mines, but gold production actually increased last year. Therefore the industry as a whole, although there may be fewer mines, did increase its production. We do not think this new formula will discourage production. We do not think any mines will close because of this revised formula. If they close it will be because of lack of ore, or for other reasons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think a great deal can usefully be added at this stage, except to point out that although the minister may be correct in saying that this formula will not result in the closing of any mines-I think 50433-101
that is questionable-certainly it will result in the reduction of assistance to efficient mines. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was certainly right when he says that it penalizes efficiency. I have an idea of what it is estimated this will mean in the reduction of assistance to the Bralorne mine, and it is a very substantial sum.
The minister might say that the production of gold increased last year. Certainly, however, if the assistance is going to be reduced as drastically as is indicated by the figures I have it is going to bring about the result that the most efficient operator is going to have to go after his high grade ore and leave the low grade ore. I am informed that this will result in a situation where the low grade ore will be sealed off, and it will be virtually impossible and certainly uneconomic to go back after it when they finish extracting the high grade ore in that area. The reasons for that are really self-evident.
The effects of this proposed legislation cannot be simply written off by saying that it is not going to close any gold mines. It is going to reduce the assistance, particularly to the efficient operators. I cannot believe that this will have anything but a damaging effect upon their whole operation. I do not see how it can have any other effect than to reduce the wages and the standard of living of the miners generally, which is equally as important as the consideration that it will reduce the over-all efficiency of the mining operations from the point of view of making the best use and the widest possible extraction of all grades of ore in their mines.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have one question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to get some comment from the minister on the statement which has been made to me that this will result in the virtual closing off of the lower grade of ore in the mines.


George Prudham: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that at all. One of the most efficient mines, in my opinion, has the lowest grade of ore. I believe that all mines are operating efficiently regardless of whether or not they have been fortunate enough to find a high grade ore deposit. The particular mine to which I refer has been operating on a very low grade of ore, and will receive more assistance under this proposal. The mines which are now operating in a good ore body will receive correspondingly less assistance. I do not believe this will result in inefficiency or highgrading. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that over the 10-year period 1942 to 1952 the maximum variation among all mines in the grade of ore has been only two-one hundredths of an ounce per ton.

Historic Sites and Monuments Act There is no reason to believe that the reduction to about the 1953 level of payments will result in highgrading or inefficiency.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman. Is it not a fact that the assistance under the changes proposed will be reduced from approximately $16 million this past year to approximately $11 million this coming year, or a reduction of about $5 million in the aggregate?


George Prudham: That is right.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Prudham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 190, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT


Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 182, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.


Mr. MacLean:: Has the minister a short statement to make?


Jean Lesage: There is not much I could add to the explanatory note at the top of the bill which has been distributed. I thought I would not intervene in the debate now, but would wait until the conclusion of the debate when hon. members had raised their questions.


John Angus MacLean: I have a few brief comments which I would like to make at this stage. I take it that the objective of this bill is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the historic sites and monuments board, and I heartily support any legislation which is calculated to attain that end. I am pleased, too, to see that the scope and definition of "historic site" have been widened to include buildings or structures that are of national interest by reason of age or architectural design.
I think it would be well for this house at this time to pay tribute to the excellent work which has been done, chiefly on a voluntary basis, by the members of the historic sites and monuments board over the years. They have rescued for us as a nation and almost against our will some of the great historic treasures and physical reminders of our historic past, which we now hold in trust and which we should be prepared to hand on to posterity.


We as a nation in the past have been woefully negligent in taking a proper interest in the physical things which are associated with the historic and the heroic deeds of our ancestors. I think I could not do better than quote one of our better known statesmen of the past in this connection. Joseph Howe once said:
A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its muniments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great structures, and fosters national pride and love of country, by perpetual references to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
I think that is advice which is still completely applicable to the present time. When considering Canadian history generally there is a tendency, which may be caused by the history textbooks which are used in some of the provinces, to think that Canadian history is entirely embraced in a recording of the events which took place in the St. Lawrence valley and in what now are the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We should realize that in recording our history and in marking places which are connected with our early history we should have in mind the total history of what is now Canada.
I would like to quote briefly from an article which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle on January 1, 1924. It was written by Dr. J. Clarence Webster, who at that time was a member of the historic sites and monuments board of Canada. He says:
While in the United States recently, I took the opportunity of visiting the region, which for centuries has been the chief thoroughfare between old Canada and the American colonies, lake Champlain being its central feature. No area of North America is richer in historic traditions, except, possibly, Nova Scotia or Quebec.
I point that out in order to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that on the east coast we have an area that is steeped in history, connected as it is with the early history of exploration and with the economic adventures connected with the fisheries and the fur trade on the Atlantic coast.
I note that this bill proposes to add two members to the board. In general I think it is an excellent thing that the board should be strengthened. I note that the increase is to be made by appointing an extra member for each of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. That is probably a very good thing. By way of explanation the bill says:
Because of the large volume of work arising from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, it is considered necessary to have two representatives from each of these provinces on the board.


Jean Lesage: It was recommended by the Massey commission.


John Angus MacLean: I recognize that fact. I see that right here in the Massey commission

report. But immediately after that, at page 348, I also see this:
Two members to be nominated by the council of the Canadian Historical Association, similarly for five-year terms and similarly eligible for reappointment for one further term.
If only one of those two recommendations were to be complied with I would think it might be more advantageous at this time to appoint two members at large, so that outstanding historians from any part of Canada could be appointed as additional members to the board. In that connection, may I point out that the Massey commission also has this to say-and I agree with it most heartily- on the subject of work which should be done by the board in the near future. This is by way of work to be done by the board:
. . . giving special attention to the province of Newfoundland as singularly rich in records of the past;
The opinion of the Massey commission seems to be that Newfoundland is the area where the most work has to be done at the moment. I note also that Canada has a number of historic parks. As a matter of fact I believe that six of our ten provinces have them. I just mention this in passing. I am pleased to see that at the resolution stage the minister stated that action is to be taken to provide an historic park in Newfoundland.


Jean Lesage: A national park.


John Angus MacLean: A national park? Not an historic park?


Mr. Stick:: No, not an historic park.


Jean Lesage: I will introduce at this session legislation to provide for the establishment of a national park.


John Angus MacLean: I am sorry I misread the minister's statement, but that only adds more force to my contention that action should be taken in the near future to create historic parks in the four provinces that do not have them. They are British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, I believe, if I am up to date.
I think it is important, too, that when historic events are commemorated it should be done in as artistic a way as possible. The work that has been done in the past by putting up markers is worth while, but I think perhaps some of those markers themselves could have more artistic value. In most cases they are just stone monuments. In Europe one sees pleasing artistic monuments. One that comes to my mind now is the French monument at the site of the battle of Waterloo, which shows the wounded French eagle. That is a monument that has some added significance.
Historic Sites and Monuments Act
I think it is vitally important that our young people growing up, especially, by means of the marking of historic sites and the preserving of historic buildings should have accurate knowledge of our history. I do not think it is good enough for our Canadian young people to get their history by extremely inaccurate United States-produced films of what is purported to be Canadian history. One that comes to my mind in the form of a film that was shown widely last year on what was supposed to be the early history of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was called "Saskatchewan", I believe.
In that connection, we should not be misled by such fanciful literary efforts as the poem Evangeline. That may be a fine piece of literary work but, from a historical point of view, it is utter nonsense. It could not be further from the facts. I think our Canadian children should be made to realize that fact.
I also think it is important that, when historic places have been marked, anniversaries in connection with them be publicized in some way in order to refresh the minds, especially of young people, as to the historic significance of those areas. In that connection two anniversaries come to my mind immediately. As I have mentioned before, my home city of Charlottetown is this year celebrating its 100th anniversary of incorporation as a city. I notice that this year 1955 is another anniversary. It is the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the first post office in Canada. That post office was established in Halifax in 1755. The site is marked with a plaque which was put up by the historic sites and monuments board on Hollis street post office in Halifax.
Having said that, I want to say that I support this bill most heartily with the reservation I have pointed out, namely that I would prefer to see the two additional members of the board appointed as members at large rather than arbitrarily appointed from two of the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the house leader for arranging for the second reading of this bill to be called today. It seems to be a year as well as a day of anniversaries. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has referred to two important anniversaries. As hon. members are aware from a little question that I managed to get in on the orders of the day today, there is another anniversary that I have in mind. This is the 28th of February, 1955. Exactly 100 years ago today, on the 28th of February, 1855, the first post office in western Canada was opened. That post office was established in a private residence which was known as the

Historic Sites and Monuments Act Ross house, and it is still known by that name today. In 1855 the area now known as Winnipeg was, of course, what was called the Red River settlement; but even so, it had had an organized government for about 20 years, a local government having been formed under the authority of the council of Assini-boia back in 1835.
The Manitoba historical society has done a good deal of research into this matter and has found that the first sheriff, teacher and historian of the Red River settlement was Alexander Ross. It was his son William Ross who in February of 1855 was appointed postmaster by what was then known as the council of Assiniboia. In earlier days that council was appointed by Lord Selkirk. By 1855 it was under the Hudson's Bay Company. That was the situation when, a century ago today, William Ross began business as the first postmaster in western Canada. His house was a building constructed of squared logs which was situated on the banks of the Red river at the foot of what later became known as Market street, in what is now the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. In more recent times the building has been moved to another location.
It is an historic site, Mr. Speaker, and the bill now before us proposes to extend the definition of an historic place to include buildings or structures that are of national interest by reason of age or architectural design, so Your Honour will recognize that I could not be more in order. The building has been moved to William Whyte park directly across the street from the Canadian Pacific Railway station in Winnipeg. I invite members who go through Winnipeg on the Canadian Pacific to use the time they have for a stopover there to go across the street and visit this very historic site.
It has been furnished in the style of the period, and this has been done through the efforts of the Manitoba historical society. On their behalf I also want to thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) for having arranged for a special cachet so that letters can still be posted from'Ross house bearing a stamp indicating that they were mailed in the first post office in western Canada.
We of the west, Mr. Speaker, have not yet formed the habit of spending much time in looking back, but once in a while on occasions such as this we do so briefly so that we may measure our progress and look forward to still greater achievements in the years that lie ahead. I hope this very important historic site will be recognized as such by the historic sites and monuments board, and I am very glad that this opportunity has arisen to draw attention to the


fact that this very day is the 100th anniversary of the opening of the first post office in western Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this measure. My remarks are going to be very brief because I was most anxious that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should have the opportunity to tell the house of the anniversary of this first western post office in Winnipeg. I am not going to say anything further because I am prepared to forgo the remarks I intended to make at this time, for the sake of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, until we come to the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is enjoying his birthday.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to appear on the pages of Hansard like shining jewels in the somewhat sombre record of today. Before concluding I think it would be appropriate to say while we are talking of historic sites and monuments that the members of this group consider the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as a monument of parliamentary integrity, intelligence and industry.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to note one fact. The minister now in charge of the department may not know of, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) may not recall, an incident of two years ago when we were discussing the bill which established the historic sites and monuments board. I drew attention then to the fact that there was no need to appoint as a member of that board the curator of the national museum, not because of the person involved but because of the nature of his work which I thought was heavy enough without inflicting on him duties connected with this particular organization. I pointed out that the Massey commission had not recommended his appointment. I see by the bill that he has now been dropped by the board.


Jean Lesage: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is not named in the bill that we have before us. He may be named as an appointee of the minister, but if the minister has that thought in mind I would draw his attention to the remarks I made in that regard in the session of 1952-53, as found at page 1444 of Hansard, and the reasons I gave there.
The second point I should like to make is one to which the hon. member for Queens

drew attention, namely that the Massey commission recommended that two members of the board should be nominated by the council of the Canadian Historical Association. I advanced arguments in favour of that proposition on that occasion. Two years ago the minister had his opportunity to implement in full the recommendations of the Massey commission with regard to this board. He overlooked that opportunity and has simply enlarged the board by adding an additional member from Ontario and Quebec as recommended by the Massey commission. There are good reasons for following the other suggestion of permitting the council of the historical association to nominate
Business of the House
members to the board. I merely want to draw those comments to the attention of the minister, and perhaps in the course of another two years they may be acted upon.
On motion of Mr. MacNaught the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the third readings that are on the order paper, then the motion to set up the radio committee, and then the motion to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
.
. [DOT] r'
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, March 1, 1955