1955-02-22

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I table a number of agreements, bilateral and multilateral, between Canada and other countries which have been signed in recent months.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES CRASH AT MOOSE JAW IN 1954-REPORT OF BOARD OF INQUIRY

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I table herewith, in English and French, the report of the board of inquiry which my predecessor, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, established to investigate the collision between a T.C.A. North Star aircraft and an R.C.A.F. Harvard aircraft near Moose Jaw on April 9, 1954. The conclusions of this report are such that I think I can add nothing to the statement made by my colleague, the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), at the last session of this house; and for this reason I decided to hold the document for tabling at this session rather than release it in the interim.
I should like to add that the recommendations of this board have received the most attentive study by my department. Some of these recommendations have already been implemented, while others are still under consideration.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister when he received the report of the board of inquiry in connection with the Moose Jaw air disaster.


George Carlyle Marler: I am unable to answer that question at the moment. I think it must have been perhaps six or eight weeks ago, but I am not certain of the date. I would have to inquire to give my hon. friend reliable information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask why, with the house in session since January 7, it has not been laid before the house until now?


George Carlyle Marler: I have already covered that in the statement. I think the report corresponded very largely with what my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said at the last session of parliament. I think my hon. friend will And there is very little difference between the two.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not an answer.



CRASH NEAR BRAMPTON IN 1954   REPORT OF TECHNICAL BOARD OF INQUIRY

George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I table herewith, in
English and French, the report of the technical board of inquiry which I established to investigate the accident to a T.C.A. Lockheed aircraft near Brampton, Ontario, on December 17, 1954. The document tabled, contains the report of the board, the appendices, transcript of evidence, and certain of the principal exhibits.
Having regard to the exhaustive inquiry made by the board and the positive nature of its findings, I have come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by setting up a public board of inquiry as I originally contemplated.
It will be noted that in its report the board made certain suggestions concerning equipment for air traffic control. These sug gestions are receiving careful consideration by my department and so far as it is feasible to do so they will be implemented. The board has also made certain recommendations as to the relationship between airline captains and airline first officers; these recommendations are being taken up by my department with the major Canadian air lines.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the question asked on Monday, February 14, by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) regarding the contribution by Canada to the distant early warning screen. As I have made clear, the provision of this distant early warning system is a jointly conceived Canada-United States project. The
1376	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry joint plan calls for two early warning lines, one north of the settled areas of Canada and known generally as the mid-Canada line, and a second line across the most northerly practicable part of North America, known generally as the distant early warning line.
These two lines will supplement the presently operating control and warning line known as the "Pinetree" line.
Canada has undertaken to finance, construct and operate the mid-Canada line, and the United States has undertaken responsibility for the construction of the distant early warning line.
In addition to undertaking the mid-Canada line, Canada will, in respect of the distant early warning line, contribute such resources of the R.C.A.F. and the R.C.N. as can be made available, and will assist the United States in organizing and using other Canadian resources.
The participation of Canada in the operation of that line is still under consideration, and we will not be in a position to make any decision about that until more is known about the numbers and the technical skills required in connection with that distant line.
The outline I have given is a short paraphrase of two joint Canada-United States announcements made on September 27 and November 19, 1954, which were published at the time; but it might be the wish of the house to have them on record, and if so, I should be glad to table them at this time.
Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I ask the Prime Minister a couple of questions arising out of his statement? What would be the total cost of the three radar protective screens? What proportion of that total cost will Canada bear in relation to the United States contribution? In order to remove the idea that some people have, that the joint venture of the United States and Canada may in some way be an invasion of or an impingement on Canada's sovereignty, what are the terms of the agreement with the United States to assure that there shall not be any invasion of that sovereignty?


Mr. St. Laurent:: With respect to the first question, it is not possible at this time to state what proportion Canada will be bearing in the joint enterprise that consists of the three warning lines. I can say that, with respect to the "Pinetree" line, it is approximately one-third. The mid-Canada line is being taken care of in its entirety, both as to cost of construction and the commitment of operation by Canada. The other line is one about which no estimates that one could hope would be anything more than a guess could be made. The hon. gentleman knows


what the conditions are in the northernmost points at which the line can be established. It is a matter, with respect to costs, about which nothing accurate can be determined at the present time. Moreover, it has been discussed between the chiefs of staff of United States and our chiefs of staff on the basis that for security reasons it would not be desirable to disclose any figures at this time. Of course, the location of some of these posts will become known because there are some who travel in those remote parts and there will be physical evidence of what is being done. But it was agreed that there would be no statements made either in Washington or here without prior notice to each other.
With respect to the invasion of Canadian sovereignty, nothing has been done that does not flow quite naturally and appropriately from the commitments we have made under the North Atlantic treaty for the common defence of the area envisaged in that treaty. These three lines have been regarded as something essential as a part of the build-up of the joint defence, and the allocation of responsibility for certain services has been made under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and every other member of the organization is pledged to assist whatever member of the organization is charged with certain responsibilities.
With respect to the "Pinetree" line, for example, we did not have, and we have not yet, sufficient qualified personnel to operate the whole of it; but it has been stipulated that progressively, as we do find it possible to replace the United States personnel in those radar stations, it will be our privilege to do so. That is the general policy that underlines, according to a declaration that was made quite a long time ago, that anything done on the territory of the other country by Canada or the United States would remain under the control of the authorities of the country where the operation was being carried out. It is no longer possible to be isolated from each other. This is something which is regarded as necessary for the protection of the North American continent and requires to be done as far from vulnerable points as possible, and on the North American continent, from the north, the farthest points are Canadian territory.



EFFECTIVENESS OF RADAR SCREENS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the report he spoke of this afternoon relative to the radar screen. I want to ask two questions, as

Inquiries of the Ministry
a matter of fact. My first question is whether serious studies have been made to determine how effective the two warning lines would be against guided missiles travelling at speeds of greater than 1,000 miles per hour. If the report which he suggested should be tabled is not too long, would it be possible to have it printed as an appendix to Hansard?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): As to the second question, that of course is a matter for the house to decide. These statements were published quite widely in the press at that time, but if it is desired for the purposes of record to have them printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings or Hansard, that could be done as they are not very lengthy.


Solon Earl Low: I would like to have that done, if possible, in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the consensus of the house that the request made by the hon. member for Peace River be agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to the hon. member's first question, I would not venture an opinion of my own. The chiefs of staff of our two countries have recommended that these warning lines would be worth what they would cost for the security of this continent and incidentally for the building up of the joint strength of NATO forces. That is a matter about which I would not be in position to express any personal opinion. When the hon. gentleman refers to missiles travelling at more than 1,000 miles an hour, that is a lot faster than I can think.


Mr. Speaker:: Might I clarify this point. These documents were tabled earlier by the right hon. the Prime Minister and now a request has been made that they be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. If they are tabled, that is one procedure; if they are to be printed it might be preferable to have them printed in Hansard.


Solon Earl Low: That was exactly what I asked for.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of documents above referred to, see appendices, page 1419.)



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the
Prime Minister 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?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear anything about that. When my attention was called to a newspaper report this morning, I had not heard of it at all.
I have had inquiries made to find out what, if any, are the facts which would justify that kind of an assertion. I have seen the suggestion that it was because this government disliked the word "royal". Well, that is nonsense. The constitution of this country is a monarchial constitution and I have always asserted, and I know that is-well, I hope it is-the unanimous sentiment of every hon. member in this house, that that is the best kind of constitution for the Canadian people that we could hope for.
Any suggestion that there is any dislike of that kind of constitution or of the proper use of the word "royal" is quite beside the point. I have declared many times that wherever it is proper the word "royal" should be used. It is unhesitatingly used when the consent of Her Majesty has been obtained. Of course, that is a part of the monarch's prerogative and we never attempt to use the word "royal" in any descriptive title without prior approval by the monarch. All hon. members know what are the many places in which it is used, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Artillery or Regiment, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Mail, and many others.
Under our constitution the executive government of this country is vested in Her Majesty. We all remember what was the unanimous feeling of this house a couple of years ago when a bill was introduced having to do with the royal style and titles as proper for use in Canada. We were all unanimous that Her Majesty should be described as the Queen of the United Kingdom and Canada, and we all asserted that it was as Queen of the United Kingdom that we were proud to have Her Majesty as the Queen of Canada because that recalled the historical development of our Canadian institutions. Her Majesty is the beloved Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and because historically the monarch of the United Kingdom has been monarch of this land as well as of the United Kingdom from at least 1763. Any suggestion
1378	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that there is any republican feeling is a suggestion that is quite foreign to me and I hope quite foreign to all hon. members of this house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. members throughout the house will agree with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister, but my remarks were directed to a positive statement appearing in a very reliable publication. I would suggest that it might be desirable that a statement be made as soon as appropriately possible dealing with this particular case which has been described in such positive terms.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? I am in agreement with what the Prime Minister has said, but should not the use of the word "royal" be confined to institutions and organizations intimately connected with the government of Canada. The government might find itself bombarded with requests to use the word "royal" in connection with this, that and everything. Should it not be confined to governmental institutions or organizations?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I think it is usually confined to governmental institutions, but there are exceptions. The most recent one that I remember is when the permission of Her Majesty was obtained to call the Winnipeg ballet the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Secretary of State for External Affairs having to do with the Pacific area. The first is this. Has Canada an observer at the southeast Asia defence treaty conference in Bangkok? If not, have any arrangements been made so the Canadian government will be kept informed of the proceedings?
My second question is this. Can the minister give the house any information concerning the report by the prime minister of Thailand that his country is threatened by invasion from communist China through a strip of Laos which lies between the two countries and which apparently is communist-dominated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question may I say that we have no observer at the conference which opens today jn Bangkok but arrangements have been


made which should ensure that we are adequately informed of what is going on at that conference.
In answer to the second question I may say that we do know that the government of Thailand has been concerned about a possible threat to its security from the adjoining territory of communist China for many months. The possibility of United Nations consideration of this matter has been discussed from time to time. Moreover, the Manila treaty provides for mutual consultation concerning threats to the security of any of the signatories, and so this question may well come before the conference which opens in Bangkok either today or tomorrow.
We have ourselves no specific information which would confirm the existence of the forces mentioned by the prime minister of Thailand in the statement which is attributed to him, but we are aware that the situation in this general area has been unsettled for some time.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a supplementary
question? Does Canada not have a member on what is known as the international supervisory commission for Laos and, if so, would it not be possible to obtain from him information with regard to this condition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The international commission for Laos does include a Canadian member as well as Indian and Polish members. Mobile teams from that commission, I understand, have investigated the situation in the northern part of Laos to which my hon. friend has referred.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is aware of a request made yesterday by Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, for a conference of government, management and labour to deal with the problem of unemployment? Will the government take steps to facilitate the holding of such a conference at an early date?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I have had no intimation of such a request from Mr. Jodoin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Labour if he will take my question of earlier today as notice and deal with it tomorrow?


An hon. Member:: Next parliament.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If there is anything to add I shall be glad to do so tomorrow.


CANADIAN WELFARE COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister advise the house of the government's reaction to the announcement of the Canadian Welfare Council, which according to the Canadian Press dispatch was communicated to the Prime Minister and premiers of the provinces, that it is prepared to call a conference of federal and provincial representatives to consider government responsibility for unemployed persons not covered by unemployment insurance.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Canadian Welfare Council has sent an invitation to the federal government to attend such meeting and that invitation is under consideration.


DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATERIAL TO MEMBERS IN FRENCH LANGUAGE ONLY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State when officials of the printing bureau were instructed to send out circular communications and questionnaires to members of parliament in the French language only?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: I
am not aware of this. I shall look into the matter and report later to my hon. friend.


WAR CLAIMS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State tell the house when those persons who have war claims pending may expect settlement?


Roch Pinard: There are quite a number of claims actually being processed by the commission. I shall inquire of the commission and inform my hon. friend as to how many claims are left for consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES


ARROW LAKES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for jumping up and down ten times, but I am a simple soul seeking truth. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of assurances given by the minister of lands, forests and mines of British Columbia that an agreement exists between the Bonneville power authority and the Kaiser corporation for the production of power in connection with the proposed Kaiser dam on the Arrow lakes, and in view of the reported statement in Washington by government officials that no agreement exists, is the minister able to give the house any information that will clarify the situation?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the press report and I have asked the officials of my department to try to secure definite information about the matter. It might take a few days.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Harry Oliver White: Will the minister indicate to the house when the public inquiry which was promised at the time of the fatal crash at Crumlin, and which resulted in the death of Robert Saunders, will be commenced?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that it has already commenced.


BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day':
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Do the remarks attributed to A. D. P. Heeney, Canadian ambassador to
1380	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the United States, made yesterday at Palm Beach, Florida, and reported by the Canadian Press in today's Globe and Mail, reflect the government's official attitude with respect to the organizational arrangements of the British commonwealth of nations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the ambassador said about the organizational arrangements. The hon. gentleman sent me a clipping in which Mr. Heeney is reported to have-
. . . described the British commonwealth as an "example to the world of how nations can survive and prosper in mutual friendship and respect."
I think that view is fairly widely shared by his fellow Canadians. The report goes on to say-not as a quotation but as a summary, I suppose, of what the ambassador said-as follows:
The commonwealth, he said, is a co-operative and voluntary association of sovereign states committed in their dealings with one another to the principles of peace and justice.
I think we are all committed to one another in the pursuit of peace and justice. Whether the word "co-operative" has just the right connotation or not, I do not know. I know it is an association where we are happy to co-operate with one another and where we each do our best to serve our interests in serving the interests of the other members of the commonwealth. According to the report he adds this comment:
It straddled the continents and cut across racial divisions and cultures.
I think that is also something which is fairly generally admitted. I think we all appreciate the fact that it is perhaps the most effective bridge we now have between the East and the. West.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps the Prime Minister would permit a supplementary question. A little further on in the clipping which I sent to the Prime Minister, the import of Mr. Heeney's remarks seems to be that the British commonwealth is an easy-going discussion group. That seemed to be the import of them. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on that matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I can assure the hon. gentleman that when we meet the discussions are always easy-going. I notice that a part of the quotation indicates that in the discussions between the ambassadors in Washington and other capitals, it is possible:
... "to discuss with special frankness and candour our differences as well as our agreements." Such consultations went on in and between the various capitals around the world.
Although such consultations rarely result in anything approaching common policies, there can be


no doubt that the effect of this friendly confrontation of differing interests and viewpoints helps us all to avoid extremes and to make full allowance for the attitudes of our friends.
Is that the part the hon. gentleman had in mind?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is also quite true but I think it is a far from complete statement of the value to us all of commonwealth relationships.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the fact that Macedonian toad flax is being advertised for sale as a flower? In view of the persistence of toad flax as a noxious weed in many areas of Canada, what steps does the minister propose to take to stop it?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kindersley was kind enough to send me a copy of his question. In reply I wish to state that the control of weeds is a provincial and municipal responsibility.
I am advised by the botany division of the central experimental farm that they have never collected a specimen of Macedonian toad flax in Saskatchewan that they are sure of. They do not know if Macedonian is definitely a weed threat. There is no legislation that forbids a seed house selling a plant such as Macedonian toad flax. It is an ornamental flower.
Common toad flax is the danger in Saskatchewan. It is native to Canada. Funds are made available by the federal Department of Agriculture to the University of Saskatchewan in connection with its control. Our officials are very much aware of the common toad flax problem. There is no federal legislation to control unless it gets into commercial seed. They do not know if Macedonian is definitely a weed threat.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Since Montreal police have confirmed that a large number of notorious American thugs have

entered Canada illegally and are currently resident in and around Montreal, is there no process by which the Department of Citizenship and Immigration can locate and deal with such undesirables?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, just before I came into the house I received a notice from the hon. gentleman that he was going to ask the question he has just put in the house. I anticipated a question of this nature. Like the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, I had advice of the report in the Montreal Star. I made immediate inquiries of the appropriate officials of my department.


William McLean Hamilton: Was
it in the Star?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am advised that somewhat similar reports were brought to the attention of the R.C.M.P. and the immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and that an investigation has been under way for some time to see whether there has been any violation of the laws which the federal government has the responsibility of enforcing; and that, of course, includes the Immigration Act.
I do not think there is anything useful I can add to this answer until this investigation has been completed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, dealt with certain questions-a set in my name and a set in the name of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-regarding lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways. The house will recall that our questions were not answered in the way we felt they should be answered.
My question of privilege is this. Last year a similar question was answered on three different occasions. On January 22, 1954, as recorded at page 1356 of Hansard, the parliamentary assistant to the then minister of transport indicated that at that time 800 employees had been laid off by the Canadian National Railways. On February 11, 1954, as recorded at page 1983 of Hansard, the then minister of transport indicated that the number had risen to 1,500. On May 20, 1954, as recorded at pages 4901 and 4902 of Hansard,
Inquiries of the Ministry the then minister of transport indicated that another 600, in addition to the 1,500, had been laid off. I hope that the present Minister of Transport will take note of this question of privilege and will see if he cannot get from the Canadian National Railways an answer supplementary to the figures that were given to us last year. In other words, can he not get from the Canadian National Railways up-to-date information, corresponding to the figures we were given last year, as to the numbers that have now been laid off?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, all I should like to say in reply to my hon. friend is that my understanding of the information given on previous occasions, those to which my hon. friend has referred, is that it was in connection with the shops and was not as general as the question which I attempted to answer yesterday. However, I shall be very glad to confer with my hon. friend and also the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to see if we can furnish in convenient form information that we possess which is of the kind that they desire to have.


John George Diefenbaker: Arising out of the question of privilege of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I want to refer particularly to one portion of the reply given yesterday by the Minister of Transport to the question I asked to which the hon. member made reference. My question was:
How many section and maintenance men of the Canadian National Railways have been laid off by (a) regions; (b) divisions, since the first day of January, 1955?
This question was answered in part as follows:
This is another question which cannot be answered completely without the assignment of a special staff.
I should like to ask the minister this question. Does Canadian National Railways not keep a record as to the number of section and maintenance men laid off which would obviate the necessity of this large or special staff in order to compile the total?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave yesterday was obtained for me after consultation with the management. I understood from the information they gave me, which I transmitted to the house, that there were 42 divisions of the railroad in which information would have to be collected in order to be able to answer the question and that they do not keep their records in such convenient form that it would be possible to

Export Trade
give the simple answer which the hon. member seems to suggest it is possible to make. As I have just said to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think it is possible by rephrasing the question to give the kind of information which the hon. members wish to procure, and I shall be glad to confer with them to see what we can do to satisfy them.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to reply to a
question of last Friday when the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked if the sale or other disposition of the northwest communications system or the Alberta-Saskatchewan section of the government telegraph and telephone service or either of them was under active consideration. The answer to the hon. member's question is no. If a specific proposal should be received it would, of course, be given consideration.

The house resumed, from Friday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply.



EXPORT TRADE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise on this motion for the purpose of expressing a grievance. Before so doing, may I point out that the fact that I am raising a new grievance will automatically put an end to any further debate on the subject that was previously under discussion. I take it that I may go ahead with this matter unless somebody else has something further to say on the grievance previously under debate.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Harold Edward Winch: As nobody else rises, I presume I can proceed with my grievance. I have a very definite grievance which I feel should be brought forward on this motion. Generally speaking, the grievance is the lack of information as to government policy regarding the endeavours of the government in the export trade field. I raise the matter particularly because of the answer I was given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to a question I asked on February 18, which is to be found at page 1281 of Hansard. On that day I asked the minister the following question:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government

turned down an application for an export permit by the East-West Export-Import Company, Vancouver, requesting permission to export Canadian built cargo ships to the U.S.S.R.? If so, will the minister explain to the house the reason for that, and will the department reconsider the application?
1 received the following reply to that question from the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The department has not in actual fact turned down an application, Mr. Speaker, for the export of a ship, since the ship does not exist. The department was consulted as to whether Canada would be prepared to export ships of certain types to the U.S.S.R. We were able to say that certain types would be authorized and certain types would not be authorized. We pointed out which types were which. We are quite sure there was no bona fide requirement behind the application. In other words, we are quite sure that no order had been placed by the U.S.S.R. or was about to be placed in this particular case.
I raise this grievance, Mr. Speaker, because I am convinced that the attitude of the government on matters of this nature is completely wrong and detrimental to the commonwealth of Canada. May I say, sir, that in speaking on another occasion I said "commonwealth of Canada" and in Hansard my words were changed to "Dominion of Canada." It is my understanding that we are now the commonwealth of Canada.


Mr. Fulton:: We certainly are not.


Harold Edward Winch: Canada is an export nation. We live and thrive because we are an export nation. Over a matter of months there have been editorials in newspapers throughout the length and breadth of the dominion, the implication of which has been that Canada in its export policies is either tied up to or is giving way to the influence of the United States. It is not my intention to engage in any diatribe against the United States with respect to our relations with that country, but I do feel that we have reached a time when, in view of our economic situation in Canada, our unemployment, and all the briefs that are being received by members of parliament, there should be complete clarification of what is the export and import policy of Canada.
There should be a complete understanding, and it has not yet been made clear either by the government generally or by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in particular whether our policy is unduly influenced by the United States or whether, being a partner in the British commonwealth, we are influenced by and support other members of the commonwealth and those democratic countries outside the commonwealth. It is my privilege, sir, to be now attending my second session of this House of Commons. I feel it is time we faced up to the attitude of government which

should very definitely be considered a grievance, and that is that because we are fearful of certain countries in the matter of war, although we are not at war, we view with suspicion every proposal which is made. I am speaking now specifically on the matter of exports and imports.
I want to deal specifically with our shipyards, although I know it is possible to deal also with other phases of this question. Canada is a nation which, because of harbours and established industries, is blessed with opportunities for building ships of many and varying types. I want to wait, Mr. Speaker, for one moment. I have a very powerful voice, but I am not able to hear even my voice because of the conversations taking place in this chamber.
Canada could and should be a shipbuilding nation. During the last war it was conclusively proven what could be done in the way of building ships in both the eastern provinces and on the Pacific coast. Today our yards both east and west are not operating anywhere near full capacity. This means a great loss to our country both from the employer point of view and also from the employee point of view. There have been a number of editorials in the press as to whether or not Canada should use its shipyards for the production of ships of a varying nature for the U.S.S.R. There has also been a brief submitted to the members of the House of Commons. I am told that under date of February 9 of this year the Vancouver daily Sun stated this:
A hot international issue has developed over Russian overtures to build cargo ships in Canada, a proposition in which a British Columbia shipyard has shown interest.
Ottawa sources said today Russian attempts to have the ships built in this country have raised the ire of U.S. government authorities. The U.S. says cargo ships are "strategic" and should not be sold to Russia.
This brief which I have in my hand, and which I would be glad to table if you so desire, goes on to say:
Britain, Denmark and France are leading a fight-
May I repeat that, sir.
Britain, Denmark and France are leading a fight to have the freighters taken off the strategic material list. Because of this disagreement, a committee representing 17 western block nations, is deadlocked in Paris on discussions concerning trade with iron curtain nations.
The British, Swedish, French, Danish and Dutch are all building or have built ships for Russia, from tankers to cargo vessels, deep sea tugs, trawlers and refrigerated fish carriers.
Now, sir, I think that is a very important statement appearing in a very important newspaper in the Dominion of Canada. As a matter of fact, its circulation is the second
Export Trade
highest in the entire country. To the best of my knowledge, sir, it has never been made clear in Canada as to what are the specifications upon which this government insists in the production of ships of varying types, or whether those specifications are tied in with the policy of the United States or tied in with the policy of Great Britain which, I understand, is similar to that of the democratic countries of France, Denmark, Sweden, and Holland.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the shipyards in Canada should be lying idle, and thousands of shipyard workers be unemployed when in the other democratic countries they do not consider that by building cargo vessels they are supplying strategic material to a country or countries with which the democracies feel they may at some time have to go to war. The question of exports is a paramount one in Canada. The utilization of our industry and the employment of our people is a paramount consideration in Canada. I feel that this government, upon more than one occasion, in its attitude and in the answers given to questions, has been laying a foundation of enmity and not friendship. Not one of us wants war. Not one of us will be derelict in either trying to prevent or being prepared for war. But, sir, when a major country such as the U.S.S.R. makes a request through an intermediary, what kind of answer does this government give? They say, we do not think the offer was made in all sincerity. The exact words were, "It is not a bona fide request".
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who made that statement here the other day, is known throughout Canada as an engineer. He is known throughout Canada as a businessman. I was amazed at his answer because he said it was not a question of the sale of a ship because the ship had not been built. Of course it had not, because before any company could proceed to build that ship they had to know whether or not they could obtain an export permit for it. Surely, that is a strictly businesslike approach. The answer was "no", on the ground that this government did not consider it a bona fide approach. They base it, I presume, on the fact that it is considered our shipyards in eastern Canada and in British Columbia could not compete with the prices offered by Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, France and Holland. But, sir, if a country with which we are not at war desires to open up trade negotiations and do business with Canada, even though it might cost them some money, who are we in Canada to say that we question why they are prepared to do so?

Export Trade
I have read thoroughly and often the brief sent to members of the House of Commons by the East-West Export-Import Company Limited of Vancouver. This is a company that has been in business for almost 20 years in that city, a company that took what I suggest is a businesslike approach, because it was announced through the medium of the press, referring to the Vancouver Sun of October 22, 1954-
Canada is prepared to approve the export of Canadian ships to Russia and her satellites within certain limitations, a high government source said today. Russia, through her embassy here, has made inquiries about the placing of contracts in Canadian shipyards. Earlier this year Soviet ambassador Dmitri Chuvahin said Russia is prepared to buy ships from Canada such as trawlers and freighters.
On the basis of this report the East-West Export-Import Company Limited made inquiries and received a reply, which said:
With reference to your above offer for construction of vessels for us please be informed that we would be ready to consider your offer for cargo motorships of about 10,000 tons deadweight and service speed 17-18 knots subject to prices not being higher than those of your competitors and your assuredness that export licences can be granted.
On the basis of that inquiry, made in all sincerity and honesty, and subject to the granting of export licences by the government of Canada, this legitimate business firm in British Columbia made inquiries as to cost. From whom did they make the inquiries? They were made from the Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited, Canadian Vickers Limited, Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited and Davie Shipbuilding Limited. As a result of these inquiries they submitted their costs.
It has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce: I think it is propaganda and not bona fide. We are living in a world which, at the present time at least, is at peace. We should be a shipbuilding nation. We have our shipyards, with thousands of trained men and women in the shipbuilding industry who are idle. But for reasons not explained by the government it has taken an attitude which I say, sir, helps to foster enmity and not friendship. It would seem that, on the basis of trade, we are afraid of those whom we might fear from a military standpoint.
Sir, irrespective of your fears of the future, you can only build friendship on the ground that "We will meet you at least half way." From all the reports I have, it is possible that we could not meet other nations on a competitive basis in the building of certain types of ships; but if we are not dealing in strategic materials, then, in the interests of our own industry, the employment of our own people and the maintenance of their

skills, why are we not prepared at least to go as far as other democratic countries who believe in democracy as much as we do? Why do we not go as far as they have gone, on a trade relationship basis?
In the 18 months I have been a member of the House of Commons I have failed completely to understand why we should follow the United States so slavishly, instead of honestly and sincerely accepting guidance from Great Britain. That applies not only in the matter of trade but also in external affairs.
As has been said by government representatives in the House of Commons, and Canadian representatives at international conferences, as well as in the press, Canada is in a better position than any other country in the world to give a lead to the world, and could be the leader of a combination of smaller nations outside the three great powers.
I believe I have placed before the house a proper grievance. I, too, look with fear to the future, from a military standpoint. But I may also say that Canada, because of her blunt statement that she questions the honesty and sincerity of a prospective trading nation, is playing power politics of another country, and is not following the lead of Great Britain. Thereby we are rendering a disservice in the interests of internationalism and the maintenance of continued peace.
I believe it is time we heard a full explanation of government policy on trade, an explanation as to why, in a time of peace, we will not follow through to find out whether an offer of trade is honestly made and bona fide, instead of challenging it immediately and saying that it is a lie, that it is propaganda and is not bona fide.
No one in this house has greater antagonism than I have to communism; no one can claim greater antagonism to the policies of the U.S.S.R. But we are interested in peace; and if we have an application for trade, let us deal with it. Let us not say immediately that it is a lie, that it is propaganda. While we may have reservations, let us accept the approaches made, let us study them and follow them through. Secondly, let us not antagonize where this is unnecessary, because, as I said before, Canada is a trading nation. Our economy falls, our standard of living falls, and in particular our shipyards and workers lie idle unless we can obtain more contracts outside of our own requirements in this, our country of Canada.
I have been told that I would be putting my neck out in raising this matter. Well, sir, that is not new to me at all. To me this matter of approach, this matter of considering trade and commerce, is of the utmost

importance to our country and our people.
I feel that Canadians have been kept in the dark as to the actual policy of the government; that Canadians have been misdirected because of statements to the effect that we challenge, that we are afraid of, any offers that are made to us by certain other countries in times of peace. I would not ask, sir, that Canada have any different specifications on the construction of ships of any nature from that of Great Britain or from that of any other democratic country. But we should know whether there is any difference; we should know whether Canada will go along with Great Britain. If so, then our Canadian shipyards should have the same right to deal with any other country as have the countries that I have already named. To me, sir, this is important from the point of view of industry, from the point of view of employment, and from the point of view of trying to build up friendship and not enmity. I sincerely hope that before this motion is passed we shall have a clear exposition from the Minister of Trade and Commerce or from anyone who speaks in his name.


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Noseworfhy:: I want to introduce a new grievance if no one else wishes to speak on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the senior hon. member for Halifax will deal with the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


John Horace Dickey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If no one else wishes to speak on the grievance that has been raised by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I should like to accept his invitation, not perhaps to give him a lengthy explanation but to deal with the points that he has raised.
In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer what he has said, and particularly the last few phrases which seem to sum up his concern. All he asked was that Canada should not be guided by specifications other than those recognized by the United Kingdom in connection with matters of this kind. I can assure the hon. member that that is so. The situation in Canada and our international commitments in this connection are exactly the same as those of the United Kingdom. The decisions which are reached in connection with these matters are joint decisions which are participated in by Canada and the United Kingdom equally.
At the beginning and toward the end of his speech the hon. member seemed to be directing his remarks to matters of general trade and general trade policy and the efforts
Export Trade
of Canada to sell in world markets the products of Canadian industry and of Canadian agriculture. But the specific matter with which he dealt at some length was of course obviously in a very restricted field, namely, in the field of trade with countries behind the iron curtain in items which come within the category of strategic items which could possibly be put to other than civilian or commercial use.
The hon. member complained that the house had been kept in the dark in connection with government policy in this regard.
I should remind him and the house, Mr. Speaker, that in the last session of parliament the Export and Import Permits Act was completely reviewed by this house. The act was re-enacted with a number of amendments, and there was quite a full debate on the various readings of that bill and in the committee of the whole house. If the hon. member wishes, he can discover government policy in connection with these matters by simply looking up the debates in Hansard of last session. If he does that, I think he will see that most of the questions he has posed this afternoon were answered in the course of the various stages of that debate. However, he has raised a specific point with which I think I should deal.
First of all, I will summarize briefly the situation in so far as Canada is concerned. With a view to co-ordinating export controls of strategic materials from this country and from other similar-minded countries, 15 of the democratic countries of the free world, which include Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, most of our NATO partners and Japan, have established under the auspices of NATO a committee called the international co-ordinating committee, on which we have permanent representation, together with the other countries participating. This committee considers the type of materials and products which can, with safety, be traded in with countries behind the iron curtain. This committee, by unanimous decision, has listed certain arms, munitions, implements of war and strategic materials which those countries, each one individually, have agreed to withhold from the Soviet bloc countries. The United Kingdom is a partner to that agreement to withhold to exactly the same extent as Canada is. Along with arms, munitions and implements of war, certain ships have been regarded, and have been listed by that committee, as of strategic importance. Whether a ship is strategic in this sense or not depends on its specifications, its speed and the details of construction and equipment. All of those 15 countries

Export Trade
govern themselves by exactly the same regulations and considerations in deciding on the strategic or non-strategic nature of ships.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question?


John Horace Dickey: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the representative of Canada on that committee backing up the request of Great Britain that the limitation on specifications be put aside to bring in cargo vessels? What stand is Canada taking on that matter?


John Horace Dickey: From time to time discussions take place in this committee with respect to changes in various regulations relating to a variety of items. It is obvious that the changing situation in the world would require that kind of discussion. I am not in position to advise the hon. member of the specific position taken by the United Kingdom or the United States or even by ourselves in those discussions.


Harold Edward Winch: By Canada.


John Horace Dickey: All I can add is that the decisions which were taken by the committee were on a basis of unanimity and that the actual regulations which are observed by Canada are those which have been accepted by the United Kingdom just as they have been accepted by us.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the hon. member explain why he is not in a position to tell us what position Canada is taking on the matter?


John Horace Dickey: I am telling the hon. member that we are not in a position, and I am not in a position, because I simply have not that information, to disclose to the hon. member what the attitude of Great Britain is on any specific question of this kind, or whether or not in discussing matters of this kind we have taken positions that are or are not in support of any views that the Great Britain representative might disclose or not. All I am saying to the hon. member is that these decisions have been taken unanimously by the committee and that Great Britain is committed to exactly the same regulations as we are.
I submit that that disposes of the main point that the hon. member made just at the end when he was insisting that we be governed by the same specifications, with respect to the strategic nature of ships, as is the United Kingdom. That is exactly the position at the present time, and so long as this committee operates on its present basis that will continue to be the position.
With reference to the particular matter of the approaches made to the Department of Trade and Commerce by the East-West Export-Import Company of Vancouver for
TMr. Dickey.]
an export permit for a ship of 15,000 tons, what they indicated was a 10,000 ton cargo vessel of 17 to 18 knots speed. I think it was indicated to be a general cargo motor ship of 15,500 tons displacement with a speed of 17 to 18 knots.
I understood the hon. member to say that he was informed that East-West Export-Import Company Limited had been organized and operating for some 20 years. The information that we have is that this company was incorporated only in September 1954. So far as we can determine, it is a new company without any background of dealings either in shipping matters or in trading matters of other kinds.
The answer which the department gave to that company was as follows:
With respect to your inquiry regarding the control of exports of ships to Russia and satellite countries, generally speaking, export permits would not be granted covering merchant ships, particularly of the size indicated in the proposal which you recently submitted to this department. Similarly, permits would not be granted for naval vessels or vessels with special characteristics or possibilities which would permit their conversion to naval uses. We would consider the specifications of the tugs or fishing vessels on their individual merits. Perhaps you would be good enough to inform us if your clients are prepared to place firm orders with you on the basis of detailed specifications.
According to the advice I have received up to today no firm order or detailed specifications have been forthcoming regarding the proposed applicant. The hon. member did not indicate that he had any information which would disclose that any shipyard or any other company of that kind had received any order or firm inquiry for ships of this nature, either directly from Russian sources or from the proposed applicant, the East-West Export-Import Company Limited.


Harold Edward Winch: I quoted from the information sent to a number of members of parliament that after receipt of information from the agency in the U.S.S.R. they had made inquiries of certain companies as to the cost of these ships.


John Horace Dickey: In that connection I noticed the quotation which the hon. member gave from this brief prepared by the East-West Export-Import Company Limited, and I quote from the second page:
Immediately upon receipt of this we opened up negotiations with Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Canadian Vickers Ltd., Victoria Machinery Depot Co. Ltd. and Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. and obtained quotations from these firms for the construction of the type of vessel requested. Subsequently an application was made to the Department of Trade and Commerce for the necessary export permit which has been rejected.


Harold Edward Winch: That is exactly what I quoted.


John Horace Dickey: The fact is that the department has not received from the companies named therein, or from any other shipyard, any proposal or suggestion which could in any sense be considered a firm order or even a reasonable inquiry in connection with the building of such a ship. No responsible member of the Canadian shipbuilding industry has given the slightest support to this application or proposed application for a permit.
I think it is significant and disposes pretty effectively of the hon. member's representation that no member of our shipbuilding industry, which is actively looking for every possibility of employing its facilities, has yet received any inquiry from the Soviet bloc for the classes of vessel for which it is clear that export permits would be issued.
In his speech the hon. member referred to a press conference given some months ago by the Soviet ambassador in connection with Canadian-Soviet trade. At that time the Soviet ambassador is reported to have said that his country would be interested in buying trawlers and cargo ships. The indication has always been definite that export permits for ships such as tugs and trawlers would be granted. However, no inquiry of this nature has been received. The type of inquiries which are directed here, and the inquiry received from the East-West Export-Import Company Limited to which the hon. member referred is of that type, appear to be only for the class of vessel for which approval cannot be obtained, either from Canada or from our partners in the international coordinating committee. On that basis I think I can advise the hon. member and the house that everything connected with this proposed application for a permit indicates that this is not a bona fide application to which we could look for any substantial business, and it is one which would have to be turned down on the facts so far disclosed. But if the East-West Export-Import Company Limited comes forward with a proposal for the kind of vessels that we can export, and if those proposals seem to be regarded as interesting by bona fide shipbuilders in Canada, they certainly will receive every co-operation and encouragement from the department.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my grievance to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters). I am speaking on behalf of two organized bodies of veterans, one in Hamilton and the other in Peterborough. Those veterans are
Housing-Sales to Veterans at the present time living in houses that were built by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation back in 1949, I think it was, especially for veterans. Recently the government has offered to sell these houses to the veterans who are renting them at the present time.
I have no criticism of that move on the part of the government. As a matter of fact, from the veterans themselves I learn that they are rather anxious to buy those houses. Most of them have lived in those houses for five years. Some of them have spent considerable sums of money in upkeep, repairs and beautifying the houses inside and out, and they have become attached to them. Another reason why they are rather anxious to buy them is that these houses now provide about the only chance these veterans have of securing low-cost houses. These veterans are certainly in no position to make the down payment and the annual payments on houses newly constructed at today's prices. These houses built five years ago, on a mass-production scale, should provide an opportunity whereby these veterans may be able to secure houses at a cost considerably lower than that of new houses. However, the criticism is of the price that the department is asking for those houses.
I am told that the price asked is, generally speaking, $8,700 with the option of a reduction of $1,000 provided the purchaser continues to live in the house for five years, or a proportionate reduction for whatever part of the five years he lives in these houses. The complaint that I have heard is that $8,700 is at least $2,000 more than the houses are worth at the present time, although not necessarily more than the present market value, because almost any kind of a house today can fetch a fairly high market value. By responsible contractors I am told that the houses were built five years ago for not more than $6,700 or $6,800. I am assured that if the government paid more than $6,800 as the top price for those houses five years ago, they paid more than the houses were then worth. If that be so, even after allowing for the $1,000 reduction over five years, the government would still stand to make a profit of $1,000 on each of those houses.
In the first place I want to say-and in this I am sure the minister will agree with me-that 1 do not think this country is in such dire economic straits that it must exploit the natural desire of a veteran to own a house in order to profit at his expense. I am quite sure that the minister is the last person in this country who would want to do that. I am confident that the minister is ill advised if he has been persuaded that these houses are worth $8,700.
1388	HOUSE OF
Housing-Sales to Veterans
I have discussed the matter with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They have given me three reasons for asking the present price. First, they say that $8,700 is a fair and reasonable price in the light of today's market value. Of course the question is whether the government, in view of the fact that these veterans have occupied these houses for five years, is going to insist on collecting the full present market value of those houses or whether the government is prepared to give these veterans a bit of a break. I have visited a number of the houses in both of these projects, and I am convinced that the government is asking more than these houses are worth even at today's market value.
The second reason given was that if the government were to sell these houses for less than $8,700 to the veterans who occupy them, they would be playing favourites with this particular group of veterans and that it would be unfair to the veterans who have built their own homes or who have purchased other houses. I doubt that the government would be subject to much criticism if by any chance these veterans should get these houses at a little bit lower cost than the price paid by some other veteran for another type of house. In any case I know that the veterans organization, the Canadian Legion, in Peterborough and in Hamilton support these organized groups and certainly they have given no indication that veterans as a whole would feel that this particular group were getting any special favour by securing these houses at a lower price.
A third reason given to me was that when these houses are sold a substantial part of the selling price must go to the municipality concerned in return for land and service privileges. My understanding is that the rent charged for these houses during the past five years was supposed to take care of the service charges which the government was paying to the municipalities. I have before me the agreement made between the city of Peterborough and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation setting forth the terms on which these houses are to be sold and just what compensation the municipality is to receive, and for the life of me I cannot see how the municipality can be blamed for the price that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is charging the veterans for those houses.
We have had reputable contractors estimate just what it will cost to bring these particular houses up to or near the standard of the new houses of similar size which are being built and sold under the auspices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in those municipalities. I refer particularly now to the group in Hamilton. I have the


details of the group in Peterborough and I will give them later. The Hamilton houses are storey and a half, five-room houses built of asbestos sheathing or siding. They have no eavestroughing and no sidewalks. There are wooden beams in the basements contrary to the Hamilton city building bylaw. They have gyproc walls with no plaster. There are no doors on the clothes closets. There are mutual side drives which are wide enough for one car only. Each sewer is connected to two houses so that if one tenant's sewer is blocked the other fellow is in trouble as well.
According to estimates which the veterans have received it will require $700 to plaster these houses inside. It will cost $200 to instal eavestroughing with drains connected to the sewers. It will cost $40 to put doors on all clothes closets and $50 to build sidewalks. It will take $400 to put in laundry tubs and to tile the kitchens in the way that the new houses are tiled. Houses with all these conveniences are built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation auspices in Hamilton and are selling for $10,000. If the houses to which I have referred were restored to the standard of new houses the purchasers would be required to spend $1,450, which would bring the price of these houses well above the present price of new houses. They would then have houses built with asbestos sheathing instead of brick. They would still have old houses that do not in any sense measure up to the standards of the new houses which are selling at $10,000.
The Peterborough people have submitted similar estimates, and these are their complaints about the condition of the houses. There is no plastered wall construction in the Peterborough houses. They are said to be unsatisfactorily insulated. Much of the material used in the construction is of inferior quality. Some of the Peterborough houses have aluminum siding instead of asbestos. The doors are very poorly fitted. The floors give evidence of the fact that uncured lumber was used. The electrical fixtures are of a very inferior standard and are poorly installed. Many of the basements become very wet and leak violently in wet weather. Repairs have had to be made to some of them because of the unsanitary condition arising from seepage into the basements. The roofs of some of the units leak and the interior decorations have suffered accordingly. Most of the maintenance work and improvements that have been carried out on these houses during the past five years have been done by the veterans themselves.
My whole purpose in raising this question is in the hope that the minister will reconsider the price which is being asked for these

houses. I may tell the minister that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation sold a group of houses in Hamilton two years ago that in my opinion, and again I compared both, are superior to those that are now being sold for $6,800. They were sold for 10 per cent down, as is being asked for these, and the interest rate was 4i per cent instead of the 5J per cent that is being charged for these particular groups of houses.
I called this matter to the attention of the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and they assured me that these veterans' houses are superior to the ones that were sold two years ago for $6,800. I assure the minister that if I wanted to purchase a house in either of these two groups I would prefer one of the houses that were sold two years ago at the same price at which these are being offered to the veterans at the present time. I suggest that in the general interests of the veterans themselves the minister or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should discuss the matter with the Department of Veterans Affairs. In my contacts with the Department of Veterans Affairs I have found that they are always willing to show a little milk of human kindness in their dealings with veterans. I have found that in every instance they are willing to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt, if at all possible.


Mr. Martin:: A very kind minister.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have had several instances lately where that has been done. I am confident that if these houses were being disposed of by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the interests of veterans instead of by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on a strictly business basis the veterans would get a better break than they are getting at the present time. As I said before, our country is not in such a dire economic condition that it must make a few hundred dollars profit on houses built for, rented to and now being sold to veterans.
There is no great rush on the part of veterans to buy them. The latest report I have as of January 6 indicates that in Peterborough five houses had been sold and two others had been vacant and up for sale for two months and had not been sold. No, five houses had been vacant and up for sale for two months without being sold. Of the eight that have been sold to date, only four were sold to veteran tenants and the other four were sold to non-tenants. I do not know whether or not they were veterans. Only four of the eight were sold to veteran tenants and the other four were disposed of to nontenants. There is no great rush on the part
Housing-Sales to Veterans of veterans to buy these houses. I should like the minister to reconsider the price placed on these houses, and let us see if we cannot give the veterans a little better break.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I am not familiar with the situation in either Peterborough or Hamilton, but as the hon. member said a moment ago I do know that the Department of Veterans Affairs has endeavoured to provide houses for veterans as cheaply as possible. During our committee meetings last year, this was one of the subjects that we discussed. It was explained to us then that since 1949, when these men first occupied these houses in Peterborough and Hamilton, the cost of construction had gone up by some 80 per cent, possibly represented by labour cost increases. This would mean that the price of the house when these veterans first rented it would be much less than the present price.
Now, the whole purpose of our program in the veterans committee last year with reference to houses was to give all the assistance possible to veterans in the construction of their own homes. Towards that end, schools were to be set up in which the veteran would be instructed in the general principles of house construction. As I say, every effort was to be made to provide the veterans with cheaper homes. It does seem to me, as has been suggested by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), that assistance could be given to the veterans to purchase these homes just the same as assistance was being given to enable veterans to build their own homes, that is, if we wish veterans to own their own homes, and I am sure we all do.
There is nothing further I wish to say in that connection except this, and I am not sure it has any particular bearing on the subject. I do feel there is too much concentration, not only in veterans endeavouring to build their own homes but other people in general, in the larger centres like Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal. I feel that this problem of veterans homes, as well as the problem of homes for other people, could be very well solved if there were a greater decentralization in this country. It could be solved if we were to build homes not only in Hamilton, Peterborough, Toronto and Montreal, but if we were to build homes and establish industries in other parts of the country. There is nothing further I wish to say in this connection, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: The
question raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is one in which
1390	HOUSE OF
Housing-Sales to Veterans I have also some interest. In the city of Cranbrook in British Columbia Central Mortgage and Housing, in the same year 1948, undertook a similar venture on behalf of the veterans. I had the privilege of visiting these homes at the request of the residents who were expecting to purchase. I must confess that I found conditions similar to those outlined by the hon. member for York South. These houses were built by mass production methods and at a time when materials were somewhat difficult to obtain, and some poor materials were put into the houses. Many of the door latches would not keep the doors closed. While there were doors on cupboards, they tended to sag and would not stay closed.
I inquired of various contractors as well as one or two people who were in the real estate business, and they felt that because of the nature of these homes there was a tendency towards a devaluation of the entire area in which they were built. These houses were built for low rental purposes in an area set aside for that purpose. It is feared by those who are purchasing them that when they put up $7,000 or $8,000 for a home and spend additional money to put it in the condition in which they wish to have it, it would be difficult for them to get their equity returned if for any reason they were forced to sell the house.
It seemed to be the general opinion, therefore, that the houses were being offered at between $500 and $1,000 more than their actual value. I am not a contractor or a real estate agent, so I could not say definitely that this is true. It was my considered opinion that they were being offered at too high a figure.
There is another point in respect of this proposed sale in that if the tenant resides in the home for five years, Central Mortgage and Housing is prepared to reduce the price by $1,000. I know it is the hope and the intention of Central Mortgage and Housing as well as the policy of the government that people should own their own homes. We are encouraging such a policy. However, I feel that if an individual wishes to make an investment it is not our business to tell him that he should own this home or that. If he has had the privilege for a few years of home ownership, and if he wishes to sell and return to a rental basis, that is his own business.
I feel that the price of the house should be set as near as possible to the cost, without reference to how many years the tenant may live in it. Some attempt should be made by the minister to assure the veterans that if the price must be the price that has been asked, the actual cost of the entire program to Central Mortgage and Housing would be


shown. I attended a meeting of the veterans affected and they felt the price being asked was very much in excess of the actual cost. Of course it is the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation when making sales-and perhaps it is a good business practice-not to give the actual cost, or to relate the sales price to that cost. Certainly a real estate agent does not make all these factors known. He simply sets the price and leaves it up to the purchaser to decide whether he is getting full value.
However, in view of the fact that this is a veterans' project and was carried out on behalf of the veterans, I think a better explanation should be given. If at all possible the prices of these houses should be reduced so as to be more in line with the wishes of the veterans concerned.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) for providing me with an opportunity to say a few words on this matter which, obviously, has been causing some concern to veterans, particularly those referred to in Peterborough and Hamilton. This subject has come before the house on other occasions.
I am grateful, too, for the contributions made by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). I do not intend to take up much time in debating the matter, but I think it would be helpful if I placed before hon. members certain salient facts about these houses and their terms of sale.
As hon. members know, quite a number of houses have been built by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for veterans. There is also a program now under way in which the Department of Veterans Affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation co-operate to provide houses for veterans. I think both departments have approached housing for veterans in a most sympathetic manner, and I would hope that the majority of hon. members would agree with that statement.
These houses generally are divided into two vintages, those built prior to 1948 and those built subsequent to 1948. The ones built prior to 1948 were put into a sales position at a lower selling price than those built in 1948 and 1949; and for obvious reasons. In the first place, they are older; second, they were built at a time when construction costs were less. Third, most of them have no basements, whereas those built in 1948 and 1949 were constructed under National Housing Act standards. Most of them are pretty good houses, with basements.

There are about 12,000 houses in the 1948-49 vintage which have been put up for sale by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the request of veterans who either occupied the houses or who, for one reason or another, had an interest in them. Within the corporation we debated at some length as to just what the government's position should be regarding making these houses available for sale. So long as the conflict was current in Korea we felt we did have an obligation to retain a pool of rental housing for veterans who would be returning from that conflict. On the other hand we felt that we should have regard to the many requests on the part of veterans to make these houses available to them on a permanent basis.
We have now put these houses in what Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation describes as a sales position. We have tried to establish the sales prices so that on an over-all national basis they would be available to veterans at cost. There is no attempt on the part of the corporation to make a profit out of this operation.
Then the hon. member for York South referred to the particular projects at Peterborough and Hamilton. I understand there are some 326 houses at Peterborough, of which 20 have now been sold; and there are 117 at Hamilton of which 10 have been sold, and all to veterans. Non-veterans are not eligible to buy these houses.
The hon. member pointed to the fact that the houses do not appear to be moving very fast, because not many of them have been sold. In reply I would say that no sales promotion is being undertaken here. We leave it to the veteran to decide whether he wants to buy a house or does not want to buy it. It is not something the government is trying to push.
The average selling price in Peterborough is $7,483; the average selling price in Hamilton is $7,562. There are some factors which make it appear that the price at which a house is being offered to a veteran is higher than it really is. In the first place, when these houses were built there was an agreement with the municipality under which they put up about $600 for servicing. Under the terms of the agreement with the municipality that amount must now be repaid to it, and this of course is being recovered out of the sales price of the house.
On the other hand it was recognized that the houses are being made available to veterans at less than the normal market price in the area. We did not want to see speculation and trafficking in these houses
Marpole Bridge
which, we hoped, would be retained by veterans who needed and wanted them. With that in mind Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation devised the formula referred to by the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Kootenay East, of charging initially $1,000 more than the ultimate price to the buyer if he continued to occupy the house for a minimum period of five years. If that is the case he does not pay that thousand dollars in the purchase price.
These houses are being made available on a basis that in my opinion is fair and equitable. They put up only 10 per cent as a down payment. The balance is paid over a period of 25 years, on the average, at normal National Housing Act rates of interest.
I think those are the essential facts of the case. There is no effort whatever by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a profit. These houses are being made available on a basis that, over-all, nationally speaking, will return costs to the corporation and nothing more. There is no effort to sponsor a sales drive to get the houses into the hands of veterans. They were put into a sales position only because it was our understanding that veterans across the country wished the opportunity to buy the houses. I think the deal is a good one; and I hope a majority of members and of veterans agree with me.



MARPOLE BRIDGE, VANCOUVER

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there is one question I should like to place before the house briefly this afternoon. It has to do with the Marpole bridge, about which hon. members have heard on different occasions. At the present time, of course, there is a very old bridge over the north arm of the Fraser river which is the only means of access to the international airport on Sea island. There has been a great deal of discussion about the construction of a new bridge, and the province has asked that the dominion should pay one-third of the cost, failing which the province itself would build a bridge and put it on a toll basis. I would ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to clarify the stand of the dominion government today concerning this bridge.
On February 3 the minister answered a question which had been asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis) about the policy of the dominion as to sharing in the cost of a bridge. The question and answer are to be found on page 793 of Hansard. Then the hon. member for

Marpole Bridge
Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) asked a supplementary question which brought this reply from the minister:
That offer was based upon the federal government's interest in having traffic proceed with the greatest facility between the mainland of Vancouver and Sea island. This present Oak street project involves a new large bridge from Vancouver to Lulu island and another smaller bridge from Lulu island to Sea island. To the extent that this new project is in keeping with the federal government's aim in making the $400,000 offer, I assume it will be available for this new project.
That seemed to be a clear commitment to pay $400,000 toward the cost of a new bridge; but the following day a dispatch appeared in the Vancouver Province which read as though the minister did not mean quite what was said in the answer the previous day. I hold in my hand the dispatch which contains this paragraph:
Outside the house, he said-
That is referring to the Minister of Public Works.
-in an interview a condition of federal participation also will be that no tolls are charged on the bridge.
The day before the minister had not said that if the provincial government levied a toll on traffic over this new bridge the dominion would not make a contribution of even $400,000. That point was not made clear by the minister, but in the interview with the correspondent of the Vancouver Daily Province he appeared to take the stand that the federal government would not pay one cent if the provincial government charged a toll on traffic over the bridge.
This stand with regard to tolls had been taken by the Minister of Public Works previously, according to a press dispatch of December 11 of last year, in which he is quoted as saying:
"Under some circumstances," said Mr. Winters, "we might still have been ready to contribute the $400,000 to the larger project planned by the province, but we obviously cannot contribute to a revenue producing project." (The new span is likely to be a toll bridge).
Of course, the tolls are to be levied only until the cost of the bridge has been collected. It is not a matter of the provincial government making money out of the tolls. It merely levies a toll on traffic until the bridge has been paid for. The people who will be using this new bridge will now be in this position. The provincial government is going to build a high-level bridge, and presumably the dominion government will not make any contribution whatever. Therefore the people will have to pay tolls until the whole cost of that bridge has been met.
I ask the Minister of Public Works just what the position of the dominion is today

with regard to this bridge. I also repeat my submission to the minister that the dominion government should pay one-third of the cost of the high-level bridge. The figure of $400,000 which he mentioned was based merely on putting a lift span in the centre of the old bridge. That would mean the bridge would have to open just as often with the lift span as it does with the swing span which is there at the present time. It would mean that the bridge would be opened betwen 6,000 and 7,000 times in a year. Those were the approximate figures. Every little tug that comes up the north arm of the Fraser blows its whistle and the bridge has to open; and that is a terrible inconvenience. It interferes with the only means of access to the greatest airport in Canada. The situation is nothing short of tragic.
I do submit that the dominion should pay its share. It would mean the payment of about $3 million. The total cost of the bridge is expected to be something under $10 million. I believe that tenders for part of the work have already been received and opened by the provincial government, and they are considerably lower than had been expected.
Conferences have been held here in Ottawa between the Minister of Public Works of the dominion and the minister for the province. The latter is Mr. Philip A. Gaglardi. The story of the conferences was summarized in the Vancouver Province last week in an article right across a full page. On one side is a picture of the Minister of Public Works entitled "Bob". On the other side is a picture of the minister of public works of British Columbia entitled "Phil". In the middle is a picture of the old Marpole bridge. The heading reads:
Beautiful friendship fades. Phil and Bob get their spans crossed. An invitation to go fishing falls flat.
One has only to refer to the return brought down by the Minister of Public Works containing the correspondence between himself and the British Columbia minister to realize just how accurate this summary made by the Province reporter last week actually is. For example, there is the first letter, dated March 25, from Victoria addressed to the Hon. Mr. Winters from Mr. Gaglardi. It begins:
I am sending to you under separate cover, a copy of the proposed Oak street bridge plan-
This is the plan for the $10 million bridge. The letter goes on:
-which was presented to me in February of 1954 by Phillips, Barratt and Partners who are consulting engineers in the city of Vancouver, which I am sure you will find to be very interesting.
Along with this I am sending you photostatic copies of newspapers which carried the story of

the information that the federal government was definitely going to help with at least one-third of the share of the building of this proposed bridge.
And I emphasize the word "this".
The last paragraph reads as follows:
Thanking you again for your kind consideration. Best personal regards. Don't forget that fishing trip out this way some time this summer.
On April 28 Mr. Gaglardi wrote again to the Minister of Public Works as follows:
Further to our conversation of yesterday-
Apparently the two ministers had an interview on the 27th.
-I would like to make our position clear as to what is meant by one-third of the cost of the replacing of the Marpole bridge. Remember I mentioned that it would be necessary for a crossing of the Moray channel as well which is all contained in the submission sent to you that was prepared by Phillips, Barratt and Partners.
This seems to show that the Minister of Public Works here in Ottawa was clearly told just what the provincial government had in mind. I now come to the letter of May 11 from the provincial minister, which reads as follows:
Further to our conversation of April 27, I wish to make a formal application for federal participation of one-third of the cost of the proposed Oak street bridge system which will replace the Marpole bridge. When I mention Oak street bridge system,
I mean the bridge across the north arm of the Fraser river and also Moray channel as a direct line between Lulu island and Sea island.
My understanding of the conversation with you was, if the provincial government would be willing to contribute one-third of the cost of the Vesuvius bay and Crofton project, you would be willing to commit the federal government to a one-third share of the above named projects, namely Oak street bridge and the crossing of the Moray [DOT]channel.
The dominion Minister of Public Works replied to that letter on May 14 by a letter which seems to me rather surprising. He said:
Further to our recent conversation, I am pleased to be able to inform you that the federal government is prepared to participate in the cost of a bridge to replace the present and inadequate .Marpole bridge.
The minister himself admits it is inadequate.
I understand it was estimated some time ago that a suitable bridge with a lift span-
That is simply a span in the old bridge.
-would cost $1,200,000 and that Mr. Howe and perhaps others of my colleagues intimated that because of the nature of the Vancouver airport and the fact that it is relatively isolated on an island-Sea island-there was some reason for federal government participation. I believe it was intimated further that the federal government might be expected to contribute one-third of the cost. On this basis, I am authorized to inform you that the federal government is prepared to pay one-third of the cost of a suitable bridge to replace the present Marpole bridge, with a maximum ;participation of $400,000.
Marpole Bridge
For the first time the minister here brings up this question of a maximum of $400,000. That just about queered the fishing trip. Then we have a letter from the British Columbia minister dated June 1, 1954 in which he says:
In reply to your letter of May 14, I first want to say that I am at a complete loss as to what brought about your decision with regard to the proposition I placed before you. While in conversation with you at my recent visit, you understood clearly that I was talking about the Oak street bridge as a replacement to the old Marpole bridge. Any suggestion that a lift span a little bit higher than the present one would be an adequate replacement is met with tremendous ridicule here, and rightly so. At a crucial time when traffic would be trying to make the airport for plane appointments, there is no guarantee that a boat the size necessitating the span to be open would not be travelling on the river, so the bottleneck would in no wise be eliminated.
I have every confidence in your sincerity, and know that when I was discussing this with you, your understanding was the same as mine. We were talking about replacing the Marpole bridge with the Oak street bridge, and your promise to me was that if I would ask my government to look with favour on a third participation in the Vesuvius bay-Crofton ferry wharves which entails approximately $30,000, you would ask your government for a third of the Oak street and Moray channel bridges, which would involve close to $3,000,000.
Then there is a letter from the dominion minister dated July 8, 1954, in which he says that the minister of public works of British Columbia has made a big mistake. This letter contains this paragraph:
When we talked about this matter in Ottawa, the only point of discussion was the replacement of the Marpole bridge. You apparently regarded the Oak street bridge as a replacement for the Marpole bridge whereas I, in fact, never did take any such view.
It looks as though the two ministers were talking more about fishing than about bridges, because their minds do not seem to have met at all, judging by this correspondence. Then on July 13, 1954, there follows a letter from the British Columbia minister which reads:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of July 8 re the Marpole bridge and thank you very much for same. It is true that the meaning I took from our conversation was that the building of the new Oak street bridge would be a replacement of the Marpole bridge. I wish to say I accept your explanation but still feel that in all fairness you must consider one-third portion of the building of the Oak street bridge. Remember that the federal government gave 50 per cent to the provincial government for the building of the highway from Victoria to the Pat bay airport. This bridge will serve the Vancouver airport and I do not see why it is unreasonable that the federal government should be expected to pay one-third.
I will have to visit Ottawa again and wish to spend some more time talking to you about this bridge. In the meantime, if you are coming out west, let me know. I still want to take you on that fishing trip.

Marpole Bridge
Then follows other correspondence, but the next letter which is material is one from the Minister of Public Works dated October 28, 1954, in which he refers to the $400,000. The letter reads:
On May 14, 1954, I wrote, Informing you that the government had agreed to participate in the cost of a bridge to replace the present Marpole bridge up to one-third of the cost of the new structure, to a maximum of $400,000. To date, we have received no indication of whether the government of British Columbia intends to avail itself of this offer.
I am now in the process of preparing the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the oncoming fiscal year, 1955-56. Since you have not indicated that the above amount, in whole or in part, will be required next year, I thought X should inform you that I am not including in my estimates an item for this project. However, the federal government's readiness to participate still stands. In the event that your government wishes to have us share in the project to the above-mentioned extent, please let me know and I will take the necessary steps to have the required amount of money made available at the appropriate time.
Then we have a letter dated December 7, 1954, from the Minister of Public Works to the Richmond board of trade which had written asking that the dominion contribute one-third. The minister states:
Although there is no direct federal responsibility, the government was impressed by the unique traffic situation which obtains between the mainland and the airport on Sea island. Parliament accordingly authorized this department-
That of course was a mistake because parliament had not authorized anything. It was the minister who was promising these things.


Robert Henry Winters: Parliament approved a vote last year.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think a vote was ever put through for $400,000.


Robert Henry Winters: It was discussed on the
estimates last year.


Howard Charles Green: I may be wrong. I wish the minister would check that, as I do not think he is right. The letter continues:
Parliament accordingly authorized this department to participate in the cost of constructing a bridge to replace the present Marpole bridge up to an amount of $400,000.
Then there is another letter dated December 7, 1954 from the minister to the international association of machinists, one paragraph of which reads:
The question of whether tolls should, or should not be charged, is entirely one for the provincial government, and I presume they are prepared to exercise their responsibility with respect to it.
There is no suggestion there that if tolls were to be charged the government would not put up $400,000. There is a final letter

from the minister of public works of British Columbia dated December 17, 1954, which reads in part:
I know that you realize I cannot agree with what you have to say and know that you also realize that this is definitely a federal responsibility. I am hoping and praying that the day will come prior to this bridge being open, when the federal government will see that it has a definite responsibility here in helping us to build this structure so that no tolls will be necessary.
I feel that this matter has not by any means been concluded, and that in your own capable manner you will think this situation over more thoroughly and some day come up with the offer of the one-third for which I feel the federal government is very much responsible.
The Province reporter ends his dispatch with a summary of the situation, after referring to the letter I have just read, as follows:
So the matter rests. Ottawa still has $400,000 that says it will help build a (non-toll) bridge at Marpole. Victoria is building at Oak street and blaming Ottawa for the tolls.
Maybe when the bridge is built Bob and Phil will both fish off it-for votes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to a consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper. Is it agreed that these bills shall be considered under the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunter) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill	No.	127,	for	the	relief	of	Berthe
Montpetit Goupil,-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Joseph Albert Roland Archambault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Evelyn Held Schulman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	130,	for	the	relief	of	Antoni
Dmysz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Eunice Levine Yelin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Joyce Hodkin Gilhooly.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	133,	for	the	relief	of	Pauline
McDonald McDerment.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Velma May Robinson Macaulay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Mary McDonald Gauthier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Andrew Henry Pytel.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 137, for the relief of James Wong, otherwise known as Yon Hong Ark.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Ruth Nathan Finkelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Richard Robert Tomlinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Sheila Elsie Clarkson Flintoft.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Joseph Edouard Alexandre Brunelle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Ruth Evans Silver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Mania Riss-man Neftin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Lucien Gagnon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of John William Newton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Rita Forest Leblanc.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Marcelle Topping Paradis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of John Edward Foran.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Evelyn Woolls Gallagher McDougall.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Edward Satel. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Mollie Litvack Rabinovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Nora Elizabeth Wolverson Powell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Hazel Miller Clark.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Zofia Janina Hurny Slesicki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Carmen Cortez Leigh Pitt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Paraskevy Moshonas Moshonas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Mary Lee Wilson Couttie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Giacinta Villarosa Colucci.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Irene Dora Baker Pearson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Gisela Kunz Cobel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Aline Rousseau Laporte.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Dorothy Arlin Wintrobe.-Mr. Hunter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would just point out that this motion which is being passed in a very few seconds, is taking care of another 36 divorces. The mill is grinding rather fast.
Private Bills-Divorce


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (misbranding).
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on Friday evening I had been saying I considered that the government had been somewhat dilatory in its present avowed intention of bringing to an end this matter of deceitful packaging. This bill concerns something which, in a domestic way, is of interest to all of us. It might be considered a somewhat trivial matter, but I think people who are using consumer goods should have some guarantee that, when they buy something, it will have some conformity to the advertising and to the packaging. I refer, of course, to the packaging of bacon.
The housewife is concerned with the leanness of bacon. I think it is fairly well known to most of us that the fat in bacon disappears in the frying pan and to all intents and purposes is lost. The housewife can buy lard in a different form of package much more cheaply than she can buy prime bacon. She is looking for bacon, not for lard; but she is paying for the lard the same price which she would expect to pay for the prime bacon. She does not want to buy a pig in a poke, but I must say that is exactly what she is doing. The manufacturer sees to it that the poke is well sealed up so she cannot get her fingers inside it or get a look to see what the contents are really like.
That is the first thing to which I object. The second and perhaps also trifling matter was explained to us I think by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), among others, namely the method by which this bacon is laid in rows in such a system that the lean and not the fat is shown. The third and the most objectionable feature-the one to which I violently object-is the deceitful use on the package itself of red lines which make of it a facsimile of the leaner meat which the housewife desires and which she wants to purchase.
My hon. friend who raised this question in the form of this draft bill-and I congratulate

Food and Drugs Act
him upon raising the matter-and the Minister of National Health and Welfare discussed the legal aspects. In his speech at page 1304 of Hansard the minister used the following words:
I shall take the position, of course, as my hon. friend has anticipated, that the law as it stands at present is adequate to deal with this particular problem;
Later on the same page he is reported as follows:
I shall readily admit at once that it is a practice which cannot, under any circumstances, be condoned.
It is in view of those statements that I suggest to the government that it has been somewhat dilatory in acting. As a matter of fact it has not acted at all. I consider it might have acted forthrightly upon the matter.
Some time ago I saw a news clipping which stated that the government-I presume the minister's department-had issued some sort of directive or had given a piece of advice to the packing companies. The minister has assured us that it is his opinion that this practice, as a result of that warning or advice, will now cease. As reported at page 1305 of Hansard the minister stated:
But I may tell my hon. friend that we have issued a directive to the trade telling them that in our judgment this practice is not valid, that it is not legitimate under the act, and must be stopped.
I point out to the minister and to the house, however, that in spite of that directive deceptively packaged bacon is still on the counters of the stores. The fact that the government has been dilatory in putting a stop to this practice is proved by another fact, namely that this packaging has been going on for a long time. In spite of the minister's assertion that the present laws, without amendment, are sufficient to cope with and stop that practice, apparently the trade does not agree with him. If it knows the law it certainly displays a complete confidence that that law will not be enforced. It is apparently right in that assumption, because this matter was brought to the attention of this house and of the government years ago. The trade is apparently willing to take a chance upon the enforcement of the legislation in order to maintain its own profits. I think something stronger than a directive is necessary to remedy the situation.
As I have said, this protest now raised by the hon. member for Kamloops is not by any means a new thing. Some hon. members may or may not recall that I myself raised the matter away back in 1949. To be precise, I raised it on September 30, 1949. If hon. members refer to Hansard of that date they

will find the debate that ensued on the subject. I raised the matter upon the estimates of the Department of Agriculture when the minister was in his seat.
On that occasion I said, if I may paraphrase a few of my own words, that I had no objection to the packaging of bacon in cellophane if the housewife found it handier in that form and if she was willing to pay the extra expense. By the way, there is a good deal of extra expense involved. You cannot handle these bacon strips and package them for nothing. I have no objection to a cellophane package through which you can see clearly, but at that time I objected to the red streaking. I considered that the borderline had been crossed between honesty and deceit. Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, is I suppose a good admonition to give anyone in any case, but it becomes a more vital admonition in view of certain modern commercial practices. It was an extremely useful admonition in a horse trade, but at least when you were buying a horse you could see his blemishes. You certainly did not expect to have those blemishes covered up by paint which was the same colour as the hair of the horse.
At the time of that debate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not appear to take the matter too seriously. Here is what he said, and I quote from page 421 of Hansard of September 30, 1949, under the name of the Minister of Agriculture:
The hon. member referred to the bacon wrappers.
Then he said he did not know much about it, and went on to say:
However, I do notice that often it is in these wrapped packages and I notice also that that is true right across the country. I suppose those who have the product for sale are trying to put it up in the form in which people are most likely to buy it. If somebody in Canada Packers has made a mistake in the type of package they are using, if it does not suit the public, then I presume it will not be very long before Burns or Swifts will find that out and put out some other form of package. In any case the public buys it.
I suggest that is a pretty specious argument, and that is just the thing with which I am finding fault, that the public does buy it because it is deceitfully packaged. I have seen women at counters where there was a slab of bacon and they could clearly see the proportion of fat and lean. They would take a look at it, and then deliberately go over to another counter, take one of these red packages of what looked like completely lean bacon, and discover later that once again they had made a mistake. I do not know whether or not they discovered their mistake, but I shall not enter into that. The Minister of Agriculture then went on to say:
The hon. member wants to know who has control over this. In so far as the last few weeks

or possibly months are concerned, this government certainly would have no control or at the most very little. We have not been able to get any bacon to send out of the country___
This of course applied to the time immediately after the war.
and our control is confined to the regulation of products in international or interprovincial trade. There is very little bacon crossing even the provincial boundaries at the present time as most of the bacon produced is consumed in the province where it is produced. Therefore the control would be entirely with the provinces.
You will notice, as I said, that argument of the Minister of Agriculture scarcely holds water when he says that the red lining on bacon packages promotes sales. Of course the packers put up the bacon in a form which is most likely to induce the public to buy it. That is why they do it, to get the public to buy inferior meat, from the point of view of fat content, at an enhanced price.
The women of the country have been concerned about this practice for a long time. As a matter of fact, I remember that the reason I raised the question in 1949 was that I had had a circular letter from the Canadian Association of Consumers who were airing their grievances in that regard. At the same time they wrote to us as members of parliament they sent out a questionnaire, presumably to their members or perhaps to the general public, I do not know, in which they asked certain questions. The answers would appear to contradict the minister's opinion as to the popularity of this particular product. I quote now from the foot of page 420 of Hansard of the same date. One of the questions was:
What Is your opinion of the red and white striped bacon wrapping?
The opinions were compiled as follows:
(a)	Over 61 per cent thought it deceiving.
(b)	About 15 per cent were indifferent or had not noticed that type of wrapping.
(c)	About 2 per cent preferred that type of wrapping.
(d)	Less than 2 per cent thought it better quality.
(e)	Over 19 per cent stated they preferred plain wrapping.
Along with the answers to the questions there were a good many comments with regard to this method of using a red striped package for bacon, a few of which I shall put on the record. Some of the comments were:
Misleading and annoying, deceptive, too much fat, think they are trying to fool the buyer-
May I interject that I am afraid they do. -the dye comes off, detracting to quality, a snare and a delusion, taints the meat, looks messy, keeps too moist and hastens molding, silly and unnecessary, takes the clerk's time opening it up to show the customer-
Food and Drugs Act
Of course, nous avons change tout cela. Now they do not open it any more, as I have explained.
-eye appeal and draws the crowd.
That is the case, and it is my case for saying that if the minister is correct in his assertion that the present legislation, which I presume was legislation that was passed previous to these complaints-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it was brought in later. It was brought in during the session before last.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister may be right.


Mr. Marlin:: I am right. My hon. friend will remember that we brought in a revision of the Food and Drugs Act two years ago.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Can the minister tell me about when the new legislation was introduced?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The session before last, and it was proclaimed last June.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That would be a couple of years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was proclaimed last June.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not going to quiz the minister about why it was not proclaimed earlier, but my assertion is that in view of the fact that the practice has been in effect all these years, in view of the fact that the matter was raised in the house in 1949, and in view of the statement of the minister that the practice is objectionable, cannot be condoned and must be stopped, it might have been stopped before now. I do not know whether the minister will agree that would be a reasonable conclusion to which I might come.
The minister says the government now has the power to stop it. He is optimistic, perhaps, when he suggests that this warning on the part of the government may have some effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a directive.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There is a difference between a directive and a warning. My legal education is improving all the time. But I suggest that now the government has the power it should stop the practice forthwith.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has my hon. friend given any consideration to the legal implications of how you stop it?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have given some thought to it, and I heard the hon. member for Kamloops and the minister discuss that matter when .the bill was last before the house. Whether or not I am much wiser, I am not prepared to say.
1398	HOUSE OF
Food and Drugs Act


Murdo William Martin: Oh, I think we grow wiser with each hour.


Mr. N. C. Schneider (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to defend the bacon processors, nor to defend the use of red stripes on bacon packages. I know something about the processing and sale of bacon, and I feel I should say something on the subject.
There is no doubt about the purpose of the red lines on the bacon wrapping. They were put there to enhance the appearance of the bacon, and to sell more bacon. That is quite evident. Some smart aleck started this practice several years ago and all the packers were forced to follow suit or their bacon would remain on the counters and never be picked up. Therefore one can see that the very ladies who have complained about the practice are the people who pick up the packages with the red lines and leave the packages without the red lines lying there unsold.
I doubt whether there are many ladies who are misled by the red lines on the package. I have spoken to several of them and they have said, "You are not kidding me about it; you have not fooled me on that subject at all". The hon. member for Kamloops bewails this despicable practice-I do not like that word-but he neglects to mention the many cases where artificial colouring is used and mixed right into the product. The bacon wrapper is printed, and the printing does not come off on the food. It does not affect the food in any way. We have so many highly artificial colourings used in icings and in cakes and candies. Then we have the bright red colouring applied to the delicious and justly famous lake Winnipeg goldeye. I do not hear anybody complaining about that, and that is right in the food. Why do we never see a green orange as we did in the past? They are all coloured. A basket of peaches is covered by red netting, as we all know. I believe the practice has been banned in Ontario, but it still prevails in some of the provinces. I do not hear anything about the misleading practice of packaging smoked kippers in bright orange cellophane.
The meat packing industry does not use one ounce of artificial colouring in any meat product. I wish we could say the same about a lot of other foods. We do not hear anything about the colouring of butter. This practice is followed all the time, and the colouring is right in the product. When the hon. member for Kamloops was interviewed by those complaining, I wonder if he noticed how much colouring had been used to paint the lily? An article published in the Calgary Daily Herald has received considerable notice. I received a copy of it from Calgary and one from Winnipeg as well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I got one too.


Norman C. Schneider: Perhaps some hon. members have seen this article in the Calgary Daily Herald. It reads in part as follows:
Women, in fact, have established a rocky reputation for being tough about being bamboozled visually in regard to things they wish to acquire. They want to see the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, preferably in clear cellophane wrapping untouched and uncamouflaged by human hand.
Women, on the other hand, are people who spend staggering millions of their husbands' painfully earned coin every year buying multi-coloured goo and exotic liquids which they smear on their faces, their eyelids, their eyebrows, their lips, their cheeks, their fingernails, behind their ears, and under their arms, and that's about as far as I think I'll go right now.
All of the bacon processors I have interviewed admit that the red line is misleading and they are quite willing to discontinue its use, providing everyone else does. I do not think there is any doubt of that. The minister has assured us that a directive has been sent out. I know all the processors are taking it seriously, but the problem is that hundreds of thousands of dollars are tied up in these expensive cellophane wrappings. It will take about four months to clear these stocks. I assure you, from my knowledge, the practice will be discontinued in about four months.
Recently the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) made a speech in which he discounted the value of our present hog grading system. I would suggest that he would be better occupied in persuading our hog producers to deliver more high grade hogs and much fewer heavy fat hogs than are being delivered. They are a real problem to the processor and the housewife.
I want to close by assuring you that the percentage of rogues is no greater amongst meat packers than amongst any other industry or occupation, including lawyers. I urge that the farmers give us lean hogs, and the processor will give you lean bacon which will need no misleading wrapper.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the views expressed by the various members who have spoken on Bill No. 8. As a person with over 40 years of experience in the meat business perhaps I could comment on the subject with some degree of intelligence.
So far as the wrapping of bacon is concerned, it is a comparatively new idea. It gained favour, as did other techniques, with the advent of the supermarket and the serve-yourself method of merchandising. There was a time when you could not buy wrapped bacon if you tried, but that was quite a few years ago. At that time the packers, with

their keen appreciation for quality, did guard the first grade quality of their bacon. The first grade was the result of years of experience and experimentation with various types of curing and various degrees of smoking with various types of sawdust-that is what was used in the old days, but I do not know what they use now. As a result a high standard of quality was developed for the first grade bacon.
For years, I do not know how far back, there has always been a first grade and a second grade. Generally speaking the first grade bacon is known as dry cured. The salt, sugar and other ingredients that go to make up the flavour are rubbed in by hand, which results in a much finer texture and a much better flavour. Generally speaking the No. 2 bacon is processed by the brine cure. I can think back to the time when you could not get a bit of fat bacon in the No. 1 grade. The processors were very particular in selecting the sides of pork that went into the processing of that No. 1 bacon. However, things have changed. In the No. 2 bacon, naturally, because it is No. 2, you expect to get a heavier type of bacon with a certain amount of fat.
Generally speaking, I believe you get what you pay for. Perhaps one of the problems in dealing with this striped package-and I do not condone it for a moment-is the desire of the public to obtain something a little cheaper than they do at the corner butcher store. If one looks carefully I believe one can ascertain whether or not the bacon is extremely fat, but we have people who are bargain hunters. Here I should like to pay tribute to the little fellow on the corner who does a good job of serving the people. If you go into his shop and want lean bacon he will get it for you if he has to tear the shop apart to do it.
I am not trying to be too critical, but I want to tell the truth about this business. This practice of using red striped cellophane in the packaging of bacon is perhaps one of the smallest sins of which the packing trade has been guilty. If you are interested in helping the consumer I could give you a few ideas that would perhaps make it a little easier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the only good thing about the stripes is the colour.


Charles Yuill: That could be. My experience goes back 44 years, and I do not know whether that is a sign of intelligence or stupidity because I have heard it said that all you need to be a successful butcher is a weak mind and a strong back. Up until the last war there seemed to be a reasonable amount of uniformity in the grades. But when the 50433-89i
Food and Drugs Act
last war came along, and there was not too much bacon available, by degrees the packers got a little more reckless in their sense of values, so far as grades were concerned. Under the guise of No. 1 bacon-and I could give the name of the packer, if you wanted it, but I do not think it is necessary-I have paid for bacon that was at least from three and one-half to four inches thick. It came into my shop during the war. This bacon was not properly cured, according to the usually accepted standards either for brine curing or dry curing.
For the sake of speed, or perhaps for some other reason, the packers pumped the brine into that fresh pork. It was not allowed to cure properly. It was then rushed to the smoke house and given the bare minimum of smoking. That bacon was shipped out under the guise of No. 1 bacon. If you brought it into your shop and did not unpack it immediately you would find when it was unpacked that there would be a puddle of brine under the packing case.


An hon. Member:: What price?


Charles Yuill: A pretty husky price. That, of course, was the other extreme. But what I have said is as true as the fact that I am standing here, because I have seen it right in my own shop, and I do not make any bones about it. When the supply became more plentiful and rationing was taken off, the packers had to get into a more reasonable spirit of competition, with the result that bacon grades improved. However, even after controls were lifted the packers persisted in delivering substandard bacon in a great number of case*.
Of course there are exceptions. I have had some very good bacon since coming to Ottawa-and I have had some pretty punk stuff, too. Last Saturday, when I was considering speaking on this subject when it came up again, I was a little more tolerant than I am today. In a shop I saw one of our western popular brands but, after looking through two whole packages, I could not find any that I wanted to buy. According to the wrappings it was all No. 1 bacon.
However, that is only one of the small things we have to worry about. I have seen back bacon, wrapped in packages and marked No. 1 brand, that came off sows. It was extremely heavy bacon. They had trimmed the fat off, and had got around the restriction in that respect. Nevertheless, a sow is a sow, wherever you meet it, and all too often we find that kind of product masqueraded as top-notch or No. 1 bacon. I do not think that is right.

Food and Drugs Act
The other day I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare say he objected to the butcher slicing the bacon and laying it in the case, sunny side up. Well, there must be a certain amount of showmanship in the meat business, the same as anywhere else.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My complaint was not so much against the butcher, because after listening to my hon. friend I have great respect for butchers. I take it he is a butcher.


Charles Yuill: A butcher has a certain technique, and his success or reputation in his field is closely connected with his ability to pretty up his products. He does not do it with deception in mind, but he will pretty them up to the point where they have some appeal to the purchasing public. I have been responsible for putting in some fancy fresh meat windows in my day; I have resorted to carving flowers on loins of pork, and the like. I have done many things to enhance the sales value of a particular product, but never once have I done it to deceive.
I believe the wrapping of bacon is not a bad practice. Where would the self-service stores be today if it were not for the wrapping not only of bacon but of everything else?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I agree with much of what the hon. member has said; but can he tell me why the packer has chosen red wrapping when he follows this practice?


Charles Yuill: Perhaps it is more pleasant to the eye. Generally speaking meat is red in colour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is more pleasing; that is why the Liberal party adopted that colour.


Charles Yuill: I would hate to think there has been any deliberate planning on the part of the processor. Perhaps the basic idea was to enhance the appearance of the package. The first wrapped bacon I remember was the product of an ambitious salesman who had the idea that it would be a good thing to place on bacon some cellophane wrapping bearing a holly design and a trade name, and also the compliments of a merchant. This was sold with a value equivalent to that of a calendar. Very often in business we gave a customer the choice of the fancy packaged bacon or a calendar. They were worth about the same amount. This was a good stunt, from the standpoint of salesmanship.
At that time one got exactly what he expected-No. 1 bacon, the very best of it. But in that case the covering was more deceptive than the red lines of today, if one wished to look at it in that way. If we want to get right down to the point of being fair

to everybody, I do not think the packing plants should work for nothing, any more than anyone else should. But I do maintain- and I know from experience-that there is altogether too great a discrepancy between the rail grade price of hogs and what we have to pay for pork wholesale. No one can tell me anything different, because I can prove it in many cases. Some consideration should be given to prices at that level. One of the greatest discrepancies is in the merchandising of products.
Under an honest arrangement no one would have to pay $1.02, $1.03, or $1.04 a pound for Canadian ham that had come off a hog priced at 32 cents, rail grade; nor should anyone have to pay 95 cents a pound for back bacon off the same grade of hog. I do not think that is necessary to make a fair margin of profit, and I place everything else in the same category. I have seen bacon at these prices that was not off a select hog supposed to be up to the standard of this 32-cent level I spoke of. I have seen cooked hams brought into my shop that came off that same kind of sow or heavy hog that is supposed to be sold at a two-thirds value as compared with a No. 1 hog.
I want to be fair to the processors and to the consumers. I would suggest that these relative grades be definitely designated so that if a person wants to buy sow-back bacon he can buy it, but at its proper price. I certainly oppose with all the power I possess this system of racketeering so far as price spreads are concerned.
I do not want to delay the house unduly, but these are things that are very important to me. Since Bill No. 8 is designed to safeguard the interests of the consumer I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the same principle be carried right across the board and we have a look at every phase of marketing.


Mr. Elmore Philpoft (Vancouver South):: I want to say a few words on this bill. I do not suppose it is very controversial, because the minister has already given his moral support to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said was that our legislation was better than this particular proposal.


Elmore Philpott: Of course; the minister has already pointed out that the government was doing more effectively the thing that the hon. member for Kamloops is asking to be done.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Elmore Philpott: I would like to point out that this idea of passing laws on such things as beautifying bacon is going a little bit too far. I would hate to see someone bring in a law

next year prohibiting young girls from using lipstick or cosmetics. When I heard the speech of the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) today I wondered whether he was not giving ideas to those on the other side who seem to have such a mania for bringing in new laws. As far as I am concerned nature knew her business when she made young girls pretty, when she put the red in the right places and the curves in the right places, and if any of the young girls can help nature along I am not going to be the one to say no, so I would not like to see anyone pass a law in that regard.
Since we are on the subject of packaging and cellophane I want to take this occasion to say that in my opinion there is far too much of it. In my opinion one of the great backward movements of this century is the constantly increasing cost of distribution occasioned by these expensive methods of merchandising. They are always getting frills and furbelows on the packaging. When I used to send my shirts out in the old days- when I first started to wear shirts that went to the laundry-I could send them to the Chinese laundry on the corner and I would get them back for a few cents. But now when I send my shirt to the laundry it comes back wrapped in so many layers of coloured cellophane that I am paying as much for the cellophane and the extra packaging and the things I do not want at all as I used to pay for a whole new shirt when I was a boy 50 years ago. I do think that we have gone much too far with all of this fancy merchandising, and it would be a good thing if we got back to the simpler way.
As far as I am concerned, with the pure food act that we have now and an alert administration, together with the fact that we have already been told that the packers themselves are going to take common-sense joint action to see that the suggestion is carried out, I cannot see why anybody should get excited about these little red stripes on the bacon packages. When I listened to the speeches the other day about how the poor women were being deceived all the way down the line, I thought of my own wife. I went back to our own refrigerator and took out a package of bacon to see if anybody could deceive my wife by these little red stripes. I give you my word that certainly no one could deceive my wife by these stripes and get her to pay a single cent extra for the bacon.
In my opinion the great modern supermarkets, with all their high-class merchandising, fancy packages and selling people things
Food and Drugs Act
they never asked for and do not want to buy, are not doing as good a job dollar for dollar and cent for cent as was done by the old corner grocer and corner butcher 50 years ago.


An hon. Member:: They are doing better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: If
the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I suggested on Friday evening when I introduced the bill, the minister had already indicated to me the fact that the department had by that time taken action by issuing a directive to the trade saying this practice must cease. It seems to me it might be appropriate to follow the suggestion I made then. I hope the government's action will be effective. I do not think I can forbear expressing the feeling it is a pity they did not take that action earlier. Now that it has been taken I hope it will succeed and have the desired result.
The minister suggested that the bill might be withdrawn. If I were to adopt that suggestion it would mean there would be no way of getting the matter back before the house this session. Rather than do that I suggested last Friday night that after everyone had finished speaking on the bill at this stage I would prefer to adjourn the debate. Then, so far as I am concerned, if in the next two or three months the item is called, if it should come up again, I will be prepared to let it stand until we see whether or not the action taken by the government will have the desired result. If in the next few months it does not appear to be effective I shall take the opportunity to proceed with the bill when it is called again. On that understanding I move that the debate be adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: The
business under private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will return to the matter which was under consideration at five o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Would you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Marpole Bridge AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



MARPOLE BRIDGE, VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply.
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I understand that under the rules of the house I am not permitted to speak twice on the same motion and therefore I am prevented from replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Yancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green).


Howard Charles Green: I was not quite finished.


Robert Henry Winters: I should like however to deal with my question of privilege. During the course of his speech the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra stated that this offer of $400,000 to which he was referring as the federal government's contribution to a suitable replacement for the existing Marpole bridge had never been approved by parliament. He told the house he believed I was mistaken when I said it had been approved by parliament. I interjected that parliament had approved a vote last year.
I was wrong in that and the hon. member was entirely correct. I had in mind the several times we had discussed this question during the course of the main and supplementary estimates, and my announcement in the house on May 12, 1954. It is a fact that there was no vote as such approved by parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for giving that explanation. I have very little to add to what I said before five o'clock, except that I believe the first intimation that the government would not contribute anything to the construction of the new bridge was at the time of the press interview last December. I checked the minister's statement on May 12, 1954, to be found at page 4645 of Hansard of last session, at which time he made his announcement that the government would contribute $400,000. There was no mention then that the money would not be forthcoming if there were to be tolls charged on traffic over the bridge. Then on June 25 I questioned the parliamentary assistant about this matter, which discussion will be found commencing at page 6774 of Hansard:


Mr. Bourget:: I think the amount of $400,000 has been offered to the province to build the Marpole bridge, but I am informed that they want to build the bridge at Oak street.
IMr. Green.]
Previously, as reported on the same page, I had read a newspaper article which showed that the provincial government was going to charge tolls if the dominion government did not contribute one-third. I had actually read that clipping before the parliamentary assistant made this answer.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Maurice Bourget: So far, I do not think-


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean then that unless the provincial government agrees to this ridiculous scheme of simply putting a lift on the old Marpole bridge, the dominion government will not make any contribution at all?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that they will probably make the same offer for the Oak street bridge.


Howard Charles Green: The dominion government will pay $400,000 on a new bridge on Oak street?


Maurice Bourget: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: I hope they will have a further look at it because they are going to have to pay more than that.


Maurice Bourget: I am not making any comment on that statement.
The stand by the government that they will not pay one red cent because the provincial government is proposing to place a toll on the traffic comes very close to breaking a commitment. It certainly is very close to being bad faith. I submit that the dominion government cannot in fairness get out of the contribution which the government itself promised, not only once but many times, not only through the present minister and his parliamentary assistant but before that by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). If the government fails to carry out that promise it is breaking faith with the people of British Columbia.
Furthermore, I believe the government should pay a full one-third of the cost of the new bridge. Most of the traffic over that bridge will be to and from Vancouver airport. A tremendous amount of air traffic is using that airport, which is also a Royal Canadian Air Force base. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) explained that just a day or two ago. Everything depends upon access to the island on which the airport is situated. I urge the Minister of Public Works not to withdraw his offer of $400,000, but rather to increase that offer to a full one-third share of the total cost of the new bridge.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, several times since coming here in 1949 I have asked the federal government to contribute one-third toward the cost of the Oak street bridge, the reason being, of course, that the approaches to the bridge are in my riding. I have asked three or four times for the production of papers, and the minister has kindly kept me advised on certain negotiations that were going on.
I am very much afraid that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) is

stating his case and basing it entirely upon newspaper reports. If he had had as much to do with the Oak street bridge as I have he would know that the confusion that was quite evident in the returns I received a few days ago did not represent all the confusion by any means. Because I had supported the provincial government of British Columbia in this matter, some time ago I contacted Mr. Gaglardi, the provincial minister of public works. He knew at that time that I was supporting the provincial government on this one matter. I then asked him what had happened in Ottawa, and his story to me of course was not nearly what the facts bore out in regard to this return.
The matter of this bridge has constituted a long story in British Columbia. It has gone past the point of whether the federal government is going to contribute one-third; it has gone past the point of whether the city of Vancouver is interested. This bridge has become a political matter in connection with the gaining of votes at the next provincial election in British Columbia. Whether or not we like it, that is the situation in my riding.
Some time ago the minister of public works of British Columbia spoke to the board of trade in Richmond. This was in the spring of 1954. He told that very august body that the detailed plans and specifications for this bridge were in Ottawa, that the Minister of Public Works knew of the plans and the estimated cost. He told my people that in open meeting, and it was reported in the press. The federal Minister of Public Works indicated that those remarks were not quite correct, because the plans for the Oak street bridge did not arrive here in detail until I think November, 1954, even though it had been reported many times in the British Columbia press that our Minister of Public Works was fully informed of the facts and figures regarding the bridge. I do not blame the Minister of Public Works if he is confused on the issue. I have been in on the top planning of this bridge for many months and I am confused, as are the people I represent.
A number of veterans in my riding have their property under expropriation in connection with the approaches to the bridge. No one in Richmond knows where those approaches are going. The council has not been able to tell the people of my riding the plans for the bridge, where the highway is going and where the southern approaches will be. How can you blame the minister of the federal government if he is confused, when my people who are right there where the bridge is going to be know nothing about it?
Marpole Bridge
About three weeks ago veterans in my riding were given three months to move out of their homes. No explanation was given, nor were they told they were going to get reasonable prices for their property. They were just told that they would have to be out on March 31, under the orders of the British Columbia government. Perhaps the house will remember that the other day I questioned the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) in regard to this matter, and his parliamentary assistant said that the veterans would be amply protected by the federal government. This has lifted a load off a lot of little people.
Now the British Columbia government, without consulting this government fully and before the negotiations were even considered completed, has called for tenders on the bridge. The Minister of Public Works expressed some surprise in this house at one time that they would have gone to tender before all negotiations were completed. Now those estimates are in the papers at home. We still do not know in Richmond exactly where the bridge is going. We do not know whether more of the little homes in Richmond are going to be expropriated. It does not seem to matter what the people of Richmond think; all that seems to matter is that an Oak street bridge be built at a considerable cost to the people of British Columbia, without the negotiations being completed either with this government or with the city of Vancouver.
It was the story about a year ago that this was going to be a three-way deal. I remember discussing with certain officials of the provincial government the fact that they were going to ask the city of Vancouver for quite an amount of money. If I remember aright, the city of Vancouver offered $200,000. The minister of public works in our provincial government said that was peanuts. We cannot blame the federal government, much as I should like to in this case because it would be good politics for me. It certainly would be good politics at home; it would gain me many votes if I could just rise and say that the minister of public works in the British Columbia government had been absolutely frank with our minister here. But he has not been frank with him any more than he has been frank with me. I have told him that I have supported his government because, if hon. members will recall it, I said I thought they were sincere. I believed they were going to build a bridge, but I think we are going to fight the building of that bridge in every constituency in British Columbia at the next provincial election.

Marpole Bridge
I have made this statement in my riding and I make it again now. I do not think the British Columbia government want any money from the federal government in connection with this project. I think they are most happy that they cannot make a deal with our minister here, because I can imagine the Social Credit members going throughout the province of British Columbia trying to tell the people that the federal government have refused to give any money toward this bridge, something which is not true.


An hon. Member:: Are you lining up speeches for us?


Tom Goode: You need somebody to line them up. I believe that even now, without consultation with our minister, if British Columbia were to come down here with plans and specifications, and if they were to lay down the whole agreement as it should be laid down, in a sincere and businesslike way, they still could receive a fairly friendly reception. I do not know that they would get any more than $400,000. However, I think their case should be prepared and presented a great deal better than it has been.
What kind of business is this when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra rises in his place and mentions a return that I asked for in the house the other day, with confusion between two ministers that is quite evident in those papers? What provincial minister ever came to Ottawa to try to sell a bill of goods and left the confusion in the mind of the federal minister that evidently is there now, with the two ministers talking about entirely different things? Does it sound right in this house that a provincial minister should come down here to get $3 million, and these letters are the result? Certainly I can only think my idea that they do not want any federal money is only too true.
The position at the Oak street bridge is this. We have always had the old Marpole bridge. We know that the thing should have been pulled down years ago, but it is there and it is being used every day. We also have another bridge on the other side of Oak street that connects the city of Vancouver with my riding. It is called the Fraser street bridge. Both are freeways. There has never been a toll on them as far as I know, and I do not expect there ever will be.
What is going to be the position here? We are going to put up an Oak street bridge at an annual cost of some $420,000 for interest and maintenance. We are going to have two free bridges, one on each side of it, and yet we are going to charge tolls on the big one. Whoever heard of a proposition like that? Nowhere in British Columbia

has a freeway been taken that has had nothing to do with railways, and another bridge opened in its place with toll charges. I have made the statement at home that the veterans on Sea island, of whom there are some 6,000 or 7,000 to whom the federal government pay family allowances every month, are going to have those family allowances taken away from them because they will have to pay tolls to the government of British Columbia in order to go to work and come home at night. None of us from British Columbia want that. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that even now it is not too late for the provincial minister to come to Ottawa and talk this matter over in a businesslike way, not in the way that it evidently has been talked over in other visits.
I should like to bring another matter to your attention at the same time, Mr. Speaker. The people of Richmond have been told that because of the federal assessment in Richmond and Sea island, which runs into some millions of dollars, the federal government have an interest there and that, because of that interest, we should put up $3 or $4 million with respect to the Oak street bridge. Not too many weeks ago the government of British Columbia bought the First Narrows bridge in Vancouver. They have also suggested-and I believe they have an inquiry under way at the present time-that they are going to put up another bridge across Bur-rard inlet. Those bridges will cost between $12 and $15 million in total.
Although they try to sell us the idea that the assessment of Richmond and Sea island is a basis for federal contribution to the Oak street bridge, I have information on my desk showing that the assessment in North Vancouver-and the city of Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver are connected by the First Narrows bridge-is almost equal to the assessment of Richmond and Sea island. Yet the provincial government have not asked for a nickel in helping them to finance the First Narrows bridge. Evidently there is one situation on one side of Burrard inlet and another situation on the other side.
But I can view this matter from a different angle. A couple of years ago the federal government tried to buy the airport on Sea island for something over $1 million. Because of a plebiscite in the city of Vancouver that agreement failed. Today the city of Vancouver still owns the Vancouver international airport. I think they are coming around to the position now where they will most likely, in the next few months, offer it to the federal government. I hope they do so, because I do not think cities have any right to the ownership of a large international airport of that

kind. If the airport comes into federal hands I believe this government will have a much greater interest in the Oak street bridge than $400,000.
I would certainly ask the Minister of Public Works to invite the provincial minister here again. We perform no service to our people if we argue by means of letters on a confused issue, as is being done now; whereas if Mr. Gaglardi comes down to Ottawa again and he has his story straight, I do not doubt that our minister here will talk the matter over with him again and perhaps propose some better agreement to his colleagues in the cabinet.
I rather think a larger contribution to this bridge is not too impossible. Because of the fact that we have large military installations at the airport and a large transport assessment in Richmond, it seems to me that $400,000 is a rather small figure for our interest in that part of the country. I hope this meeting will take place, but I suggest that there certainly should be present at that meeting someone from the city of Vancouver who holds some responsibility in this matter. It seems strange to me that the government of British Columbia should have forgotten about the interests of the city of Vancouver lately.
The three parties have an interest, and I think if the city of Vancouver could come forward with about $350,000 or a little more the federal government should consider making a one-third contribution. However, it is not quite as easy as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made out this afternoon. He has been a great exponent of the Oak street bridge. I think the people of Vancouver are indebted to him for his efforts, as I hope they are to me. I have tried to present the matter in the most businesslike way I could, and I still ask the minister to take another look at it.



DISRAELI BRIDGE, WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my view it is time the house heard about another bridge, and that is my reason for rising for a few moments in this debate. I was sorry I had not made sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) had seen a certain dispatch in the press before I asked him a question on the orders of the day this afternoon, but I thought he would have seen it. Perhaps I might tell him now that my question was based on a dispatch in this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail which was datelined from Montreal. The heading of the article reads, "Jodoin Suggests 50433-90
Disraeli Bridge
Three-way Parley to Provide Jobs." I should like to read a sentence or two from the article. It reads:
The president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada today called for a conference of labour, management and government to help solve unemployment. Claude Jodoin, head of the 580,000-member body, told the Canadian Club the conference should be held immediately to find ways of solving the "terrifying problems of 600,000 unemployed Canadians".
I invite the minister to read the dispatch in full, and perhaps he might be able to comment on it either during this debate tonight or tomorrow on motions or on the orders of the day.
It is also a matter of interest to me that at the same time that one reads that dispatch from Montreal calling for an attack on the problem of unemployment one also finds in today's issue of the Montreal Gazette an article entitled, "Two Tunnels, Two Bridges, said Need." The first paragraph of this article reads:
Montreal plans to ask the federal government to build four new traffic links between Montreal and the south shore at a cost of about $100 million.
Thus you have from the west coast in the matter that has just been under discussion, namely the Marpole bridge, and from Montreal in the dispatch I have just read, an indication that there is a growing feeling in the country that something needs to be done regarding some of the public projects that are required in Canada. I deliberately set those dispatches in the context of Mr. Jodoin's appeal that there be a three-way conference to attack the problem of unemployment.
Halfway between Vancouver and Montreal, halfway between the Marpole bridge and the tunnels and the bridges they say they need in Montreal, is the important Canadian centre of Winnipeg, and we need a bridge there too. It is in connection with that bridge that I want to say a few words. As a matter of fact our traffic problems in the city of Winnipeg are so great that a number of bridges are sorely needed, but I ask the government to get ready to consider a particular request which I believe will be made to the federal government before long. That request will relate to what is known as the Disraeli bridge, which it is proposed should be built over the Red river in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre to relieve the serious traffic congestion between downtown Winnipeg and the north end of the city.
The matter has been under consideration at the city level for some considerable time. Recently a delegation led by Mayor George Sharpe of the city of Winnipeg called on the provincial government asking it to provide aid toward the construction of the Disraeli bridge, and it has been suggested by the

Disraeli Bridge
city to the provincial government that it should approach the federal government to obtain its sanction of this project, a project of the kind that was envisaged in the famous green book proposals of 1945.
The amount of money involved in this bridge is peanuts compared with what they are asking in Montreal and is small compared with what is requested by Vancouver, but I draw the attention of the government as a whole and the Minister of Labour in particular, in view of my question to him earlier today, to the statement that has been made by the chief engineer of the city of Winnipeg, Mr. W. D. Hurst, that this project would provide work for 410 men for about two years. The total estimated cost of the Disraeli bridge project is of the order of $6 million, and it is expected that the labour cost would be of the order of $2,500,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in general terms but also in specific terms. It does seem to me that the point made by President Jodoin of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada is well put, that the time has come for a concerted attack on the serious problem of unemployment. He went on to say, in the dispatch from which I read a couple of paragraphs a few moments ago:
"It is no time for playing politics", he said. "It is time for all levels of government, employers and labour to get together to discuss this problem around the table and get some action."
I do not think it is necessary to press the point that, along with much needed action in housing and other fields, this whole field of public works projects is one in which something could be done for the good of the country in terms of relieving traffic congestion and improving our whole highway set-up, and in terms of improving the wealth of the country as a whole. It is also a field in which something very definite can be done to minimize unemployment.
I urge the Minister of Labour as strongly as I can to give serious consideration to the suggestion made by Mr. Jodoin. If I heard the minister correctly in the interchange we had this afternoon, I think he said he had not yet had a request directly from Mr. Jodoin himself. I hope he will not wait for a letter from the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, but rather that the very fact that such a conference has been suggested will prompt him to take action himself. It is not only a conference along the lines suggested for dealing with unemployment that I urge upon the government. I also urge the government as a whole to shake the dust off its green books of 1945 and make it clear to the country that they are now prepared to put federal money into public works

projects such as those that have been suggested by other members, and such as this bridge project that is sorely needed in the city of Winnipeg.
As I say, I expect that a formal request with respect to the Disraeli bridge project will come from the city of Winnipeg through the provincial government before very long. I hope that when it comes it will receive favourable consideration by the federal government, and that we can soon have the help we need on this very important project, both because we need the bridge and because we need employment in the city of Winnipeg.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate with respect to bridges-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am informed that the hon. member who has just risen has already spoken on this motion. Is the motion carried?



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY

Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Before we pass the motion to go into supply, Mr. Speaker, I have two related matters upon which I should like to say a word. They have to do with the unfair competition in the trucking industry, which is related also to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in the province of British Columbia-


Mr. Harris:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have not been in the house sufficiently long to have become familiar with the grievance practice that seems to have grown up in the past two years. My understanding is that my hon. friend cannot discuss anything which he could discuss when we get into supply. If he will begin by announcing the grievance he has in mind we might be able to judge whether or not it is in order.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Well, I am new in the house but my grievance is this. The subsidized railways are putting themselves in competition with the trucking industry to the point where it is ultimately going to destroy that industry.


Walter Edward Harris: This has nothing whatever to do with the government moving into supply, and surely is not a grievance at this point that would hold up getting into committee of supply where we can discuss the expenditure of public money.


Mr. Quelch:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I always understood that on the motion to go into supply one could raise any grievance. The minister could very well argue that any matters one wished to discuss could be discussed at some point on the estimates. How do we know whether or not

the minister is going to bring in the estimates of the Department of Transport immediately after this motion is passed? Surely it has always been the right of a member to raise any grievance, no matter what that grievance may be, on the motion to go into supply. I do not feel the minister is in order in saying that it should be a matter that could not be raised when we get on the estimates.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the hon. member must have misunderstood me, and I may have been at fault. I did not say anything about the estimates, but I did say something about getting into supply. I admit we have nothing in our estimates on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, at least I do not think we have. But that is not the point. The point the hon. member was making was that subsidized railways, privately owned perhaps, are in competition with trucking. Now, is the point that this government should do something about that?


Mr. Hansell:: If I may speak to the point of order the minister has raised, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) came to me and asked whether I thought he would be in order in raising this matter, and I told him I thought he would. I thought so for this reason. The traditional picture is this. We go into supply for the purpose of asking the people of Canada to give some money to the crown. Traditionally, before we go into supply members who represent the people have a right to air a grievance before the crown gets any more money.


Walter Edward Harris: A grievance against the crown?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; that is the traditional pattern. The grievance the hon. member has is simply this, that this government collects money for the purpose of subsidizing railways. Now, before the house moves into committee of supply, the hon. member wants to say why we should not go into supply.


John Horace Dickey: You should not subsidize railways.


Ernest George Hansell: No, not necessarily, but he has a grievance in respect of that. It may be that.


John Horace Dickey: You say you know what his grievance is; let us know.


Victor Quelch: Let him announce it.


Ernest George Hansell: My friends are not going to buffalo me like that. There have been a few other people airing grievances in this debate on the motion to go into supply which were no more justified than the one my hon. friend has.
Pacific Great Eastern Railway


John Horace Dickey: That is your opinion.


Ernest George Hansell: That is my opinion, and my
opinion is just as substantial as that of the member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey).


Victor Quelch: It just happens he is at the
tail end, so he is getting impatient.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not want to do anything at all that would precipitate a longer debate than we have already had. If I understand my hon. friend intends to complain about the conduct of the government in some respects, this is the point at which to make the complaint and I withdraw anything I have said.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am grateful to
hon. members who have just spoken to the point of order. I should like to refer to citation 467 in Beauchesne's third edition, which refers to a motion to go into committee of supply, and reads in part as follows:
When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament . . .
The opening remarks of the hon. member who took the floor did give me some concern because it seemed to me he intended to address himself to the regulation of truckers which, on the surface, would appear to be a provincial matter and would possibly not be the type of grievance which we would ordinarily hear at this time. I am merely drawing the hon. member's attention to this citation and asking him to co-operate in this respect, that any grievance which he raises should be a matter, in the words of the citation, "within the powers of the federal parliament".


Bert Raymond Leboe: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I shall
govern myself accordingly. What I want to deal with has to do with the federal government and the Department of Transport, I believe. The question resolves itself around something that is very important to the people in the northern interior of British Columbia. Their welfare, of course, is something about which I am greatly concerned.
The grievance is simply this, and I may state it again. The railways of Canada come under the Department of Transport, and by virtue of the fact that we vote moneys for these railways, particularly the Canadian National, they are able to transport goods for almost nothing. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway has a working agreement with a trucking concern that is known as a piggyback service from Vancouver into Dawson Creek, which is in competition with the subsidized Canadian National Railways. How we can expect any legitimate business to
1408	HOUSE OF
Pacific Great Eastern Railway carry on against a subsidized railway that can cut its rates to nothing is more than I can understand.
I asked whether or not there were going to be any grants to aid in the construction of this Pacific Great Eastern Railway. When I analysed the answer I got I saw in it the possibility of competition against the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, which would place that provincial railway in such a position that in the eyes of the federal government it would become uneconomical to operate.
Now, if the Pacific Great Eastern Railway cannot meet that competition and its business drops, naturally the railway will be in such a position that this government might as well come along and say, "We have no reason whatsoever for helping to build the railway any further into the northern part of the province, or for connecting Squamish with Vancouver". In that connection I should like to read from a report that appeared in the Prince George Citizen of February 3, 1955. It bears the heading "Major Railways hit P.G.E. with Low Freight Rate to Dawson Creek" and states:
The Pacific Great Eastern Railway stands to lose thousands of dollars in revenue unless it meets a new low Vancouver to Dawson Creek freight charge set by the C.N.R. and C.P.R., according to Frank Walden, special writer for the Vancouver Sun.
The P.G.E. hooked up 18 months ago at Prince George with a Dawson Creek trucking firm to offer lower freight rates to the north, and since then the national railways, operating on their old schedule, have lost considerable business.
Then the article goes on to explain the losses of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and of the trucking industry. And, incidentally, anyone who is familiar with that part of the country knows that the trucking industry is very important to the welfare of that particular area. Later in the same article we find this:
The P.G.E. thus was able to quote a Vancouver to Dawson Creek freight rate for the first time. It was $3.50 a hundredweight for number one freight and $2.09 for number five.
Because of the shorter haul-700 miles less-* Vancouver wholesalers began selling immediately in Dawson Creek. Edmonton firms found their B.C. block business slipping.
The final cut on the rate, as I understand it, was another 74 cents below the figure I have just given. It appears to me that most certainly this is something that should be brought to the attention of the house with great force, and that we must get down to something in the nature of an arrangement under which the people of British Columbia will be protected. I believe the thinking of the people out there can be described best by


an editorial which appeared in the Dawson Creek Star of January 27, 1955, which states:
Collusion between the federal government and the two big railway companies to scuttle the Canadian truck freight service appears indicated in a recent announcement of a drastic reduction in freight rates. The announced 74 cents a hundred under the combined P.G.E. rail-truck rate from Vancouver to Dawson Creek is also seen as a crack at the previncially operated P.G.E. railway. Expansion plans of the latter railway to serve the fast growing Peace river country doesn't fit in with the stagnated thinking of Ottawa officials who in the past have been proven to be long on promises but short on action.
Fast and efficient service of reliable trucking companies has taken away from the railways much of the freight movement, particularly over shorter distances. Trucking companies have to improve and maintain good service to exist, not so the railways. Railways can always fall back on taxpayers subsidies when the going gets tough.
At a time when the railways are screaming for higher freight rates, the action of cutting to the bone the rate between Vancouver and Dawson Creek can only mean one thing-the elimination of truck hauling competition, then up will go the rail freight rate higher than ever.
And later in the same editorial:
Should the suggested cut in rail rates take place, as seems indicated, it means local trucking companies will suffer a setback which could put them out of business completely. Taxpayers will still be expected to subsidize the railways even when running at a considerable loss. And if railways don't admit they would be running at a loss under these conditions then there is no justification for asking for an increased tariff rate.
We suspect the main reason for the move is to get at the provincial government because of its announced plan to extend the P.G.E. railway into the Peace river country with its ultimate intention of pulling a portion of the freight traffic to the west. A somewhat "dog in the manger" attitude accounted for by the railways lack of ability to meet efficient operation of the truckers with equally efficient operation of their own business.
Just to review the situation briefly I should like to give some short quotations with a view to clarifying the position. I would quote first from page 1448 of Hansard, the second session of 1949. Mr. Chevrier, who was then minister of transport, said this:
The reasons for the construction of the Pacific Great Eastern were: (1) to provide an independent or direct route for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the city of Vancouver, (2) to open the central portion of British Columbia; and (3) to provide an outlet for the Peace river country through Vancouver.
And to quote again from page 1450 of the same volume, we find the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) speaking to a bill to bring assistance to the construction of the Pacific Great Eastern railway from Quesnel to Prince George. He said:
The P.G.E. of course will never be a profitable operation until the other gap is also completed, that is the gap between the village of Squamish and the city of Vancouver.

And again, at the same page:
I want to warn hon. members, however, that when this subsidy of $15,000 a mile for this construction is passed, I do not think it will be the last time this house will be asked to help in the extension of the P.G.E.
And again on the same page:
I want to just mention this briefly, because when we are passing this appropriation, I think we should be fully aware of all the implications, since we are committing ourselves to a policy of subsidizing the extension of this provincial railway.
I make these quotations only because they have a bearing on the problem. It will certainly be difficult for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway as well as for the provincial government if, because of unfair competition from subsidized federal railways, they have to show losses in their operations and receive lesser amounts for the freight they are carrying. I can see where this government could come back to the province of British Columbia and say, "You are not making any money. Why should we give any additional assistance toward the extension of that railway from Squamish, British Columbia, to Vancouver, or from Prince George into the great Peace river country?" That is why I bring this up at this time. It is very important to the people of that part of the country. We are looking forward to the day when the thinking of this government will be along the lines of the thinking in 1949 when grants were made to the provincial government to extend this railway.
I should like to see this matter cleared up in such a way that a reasonable charge can be made on freight going into the Peace river area so competition will be fair. If the railways were not being subsidized it would be a different situation, but since the railways are subsidized it puts the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and the truckers in an absolutely impossible situation. I hope the government will look into the matter and do something about it, because it certainly is worthy of attention.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
59. Departmental administration, $493,651.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
293. Departmental administration, $509,310.
Item stands.
Special Committee on Estimates
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 92. Departmental administration, $3,731,631.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 159. Departmental administration, $472,451.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 510. Departmental administration, $2,230,141.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Walter Edward Harris: That items numbered 59 to 83 inclusive, relating to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: items numbered 293 to 333 inclusive, 541 and 542, relating to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; and items numbered 510 to 535 inclusive, 550 and 551 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, as listed in the main estimates 1955-56, be withdrawn from the committee of supply, and referred to the special committee on estimates, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister which other departments he is planning to send to that committee?


Walter Edward Harris: I had agreed on the other departments with my hon. friend about two weeks ago. I have forgotten the other two.


Howard Charles Green: There has been a change this evening in so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, and I was wondering whether there had been any other changes?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not possible to follow the numbers of the items that the minister read. I wonder whether he can assure us that the items which he read and proposes to refer to the committee on estimates are all the items of the departments that he mentioned?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Ernest George Hansell: Before the motion is put, I have a question to ask. Since we are embarking upon a new procedure, would it be less confusing if the items that are to come up for discussion from day to day were included in the little schedule that is printed on the back of Votes and Proceedings, giving the time the committee is to meet? Then we would know what items were to be discussed,
1410	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act and we could be there if we were interested in any particular item. Is it the intention to have a printed copy of the proceedings of the committee?


Walter Edward Harris: It is the intention to have a record kept of the proceedings. As I said earlier today, I am not a member of the committee but I would suppose it would be the intention of the committee to begin with a department and carry it through to the end. They may vary that, of course, but I would not think it would be necessary to indicate in Votes and Proceedings each day what the committee was going to do. It might be desirable to indicate from time to time what department they were considering, but I do not think we should go into detail on what items they are considering.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister one other question? I raised it once before, but I do not think it has been dealt with yet by the minister. I take it-and I hope it is the government's thought-that when the committee on estimates completes its review of the items of a particular department it will then report back to the house on that particular department without waiting to complete its review of all estimates of the four or more departments that are to be referred to it.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be very disappointed if the committee does not report once a week some department that it has dealt with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to increase the allowances and the permissible income: to further extend the benefits of the act; and also to provide for the salaries of the members of the board.
He said: The present resolution is consequent upon the announcement made in the speech from the throne.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a point of order, can the minister speak now, or do we go into committee before he speaks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he speaks now we shall speak, too.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I beg your pardon; the motion was that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I must
apologize for rising to speak on the resolution at what appeared to be the wrong time, but I could not help recalling that the last time I rose to introduce a resolution on the War Veterans Allowance Act the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre insisted that I should make a statement before we went into committee, and we had quite a bit of argument over it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was before there was a ruling against doing it.


Hugues Lapointe: However, as I was stating, the resolution now before the committee is consequent on the announcement made in the speech from the throne that the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, would be amended during the course of the present session. Hon. members will recall that this act was completely revised in 1952.
I realize that it would not be proper at this stage to give details of the legislation which will follow this resolution, but I am sure I will meet the wishes of hon. members by indicating what the salient points will be. The main effect of the amendments will be to increase the rate of the monthly allowance by 20 per cent. In other words, the allowance to qualified veterans and widows having the status of single persons will be increased from a maximum of $50 to $60, while that paid to veterans and widows who qualify for the married rate will be increased from $90 to $108.
At the same time it is proposed to increase the permissible income ceilings from $720 to $840 for recipients of the single rate and from $1,200 to $1,440 for recipients of the married rate. In the case of a married veteran whose spouse is blind within the meaning of the Blind Persons Act the income ceiling will be raised from the present rate of $1,320 to $1,560. There will be a proportionate increase in the ceilings applicable to orphans who qualify under the act for the allowance.
I believe these increases in rates and ceilings are in line with the general policy of making certain that the veterans charter is kept up to date and amended to meet changing conditions. I am sure the proposed amendments will be welcomed not only by those directly concerned but by Canadians generally, who do have a genuine and sympathetic interest in the welfare and well-being of our older veterans.
There is also a provision for extending the benefits of section 4 of the act to female veterans and to widows at the age of 55. As hon. members know, the payment of allowance under this section is made on a monthly rather than a yearly basis, which enables

the beneficiary to take employment for a limited period during the year without the entitlement to allowance during the remaining months of the year being affected by the earned income.
There will be certain other amendments, mostly of an administrative nature. As the resolution mentions, there will be provision for increasing the salaries of the members of the board.
In introducing this legislation I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members on both sides of the house, particularly those who have sat on the special committees on veterans affairs, who together with the various veterans organizations in Canada have been most helpful in presenting their studies and recommendations. As minister of the department charged with the responsibility of veterans affairs, I have no doubt that the amending legislation which will follow this resolution will raise appreciably the standard of living of many veterans and their dependents.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate very much the explanation the minister has given of this resolution. I am sure there will be general satisfaction that this matter is now before the house and will be shortly before the veterans committee which is being set up. It is not necessary for me to say that this has been pressed for for a long time. I feel that the veterans who have been waiting for some improvement in war veterans allowances will feel that they have had a long night of waiting so far as this legislation is concerned.
The minister has given us some information but without going into the matter in detail. I think it will be well to wait until the bill is brought down. He has stated that the allowance is to be increased by 20 per cent, that the $50 is to be increased to $60 as far as single veterans are concerned. That meets the request of the Canadian Legion and the members who sat on the committee last year and in 1952.
The allowance to the married veteran is increased from $90 to $108. The veterans and members of the committee asked that it be increased to $120. I am sure there will be some dissatisfaction here. It does seem to me that the wishes of the Canadian Legion and members of the committees in past years could very well have been met.
The permissible income ceiling for single veterans has been raised from $720 to $840, an increase of $120. In my opinion this is not enough. However, we will hear more of this when the matter is discussed in the committee. The permissible income ceiling
War Veterans Allowance Act for married veterans has been increased from $1,200 to $1,440, an increase of $240. The members of the committee and the Canadian Legion asked that it be raised to $2,000. Again I say this increase is not going to satisfy many war veteran allowance recipients throughout this country.
I am glad to know that the provisions of section 4 are being extended to female veterans. While this may not seem to amount to very much it will be of great assistance to them.
As I said at the outset, it is not my intention to discuss this matter further. We will have that opportunity when the bill is before the committee. While we are pleased that these increases in war veterans allowances are being provided, something which should have been done two or three years ago, we are disappointed that the permissible income ceiling is not higher than it is.
The fourth section of the resolution provides for an increase in the salaries of the members of the board, and I presume that again will be done by order in council. We objected to this very strongly last year when the amendments to the Pension Act were before the house. I see the minister shakes his head. Am I to take it that it will not be done that way?


Hugues Lapointe: You will see by the bill.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We will see by the bill. Whenever we criticize increases in salaries being brought about in this way we are told that there is a precedent. Of course there is a precedent. Every year a precedent is established, and we go from precedent to precedent. I suppose if these increases are to be made in the same way we will be told that a precedent was established in the amendments to the Pension Act which were put through last year.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to say now. I shall be glad indeed to see the bill when it is brought down. At that time we shall have further discussion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this group is naturally much pleased that there has been some response on the part of the government to the repeated requests of the Legion and other veterans organizations for an increase in the war veterans allowance, and other improvements to the act. While the single allowance has been raised to $60 and the married allowance to $108 per month, this increase does not meet the requests of the Legion or the other veterans organizations. In my opinion we cannot criticize the government for that shortcoming quite as severely as we can criticize them for the fact
1412	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act that the permissible income-as far as I know from what the minister said-remains practically unchanged. It remains unchanged if my calculations are correct as far as the single veteran is concerned. As far as the married veteran is concerned, he is allowed to earn the magnificent extra sum of $2 a month. He is going to get fat on that, is he not?


Mr. MacDougall:: How do you get that figure?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was allowed $10 a month and now he is allowed $12.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He was allowed additional income of $10; now he is allowed additional income of $12, if I have written my figures down correctly. I think that provision can be severely criticized. The Legion and other organizations were extremely keen on getting a considerable increase in the permissive income in order to make life a bit easier for quite a considerable number of veterans. As I see it, as far as the permissive income aspects of the bill are concerned they are practically unchanged.
When this bill comes before the veterans affairs committee I hope that, as a result of representations by veterans organizations and consideration by the committee, the government will see fit to soften its heart in that respect. I can never see why there is so much resistance to increasing the permissive income. I know that in my own district there are quite a number of veterans on war veterans allowance who, if the permissive income were raised, could make quite a contribution in their own way by doing work such as mowing lawns, doing minor repairs and things _ of that sort, whereby their standard of living would be considerably improved. This group hopes that before this legislation is reported to the house from the committee there will be sufficient evidence and on the part of the government sufficient understanding of these veterans' conditions that we shall have a considerable improvement in the bill in that respect.
I think it is quite unnecessary to talk at length at this stage. I am pleased to know that the bill is going before the veterans affairs committee. I know it will receive every consideration by the committee, which will have the opportunity to hear representations and further evidence. I therefore think it is quite unnecessary to speak at length at this time.


Victor Quelch: For a number of years we have regretted the failure of the government to bring down amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. It is a real pleasure this 

time to be able to congratulate the government on bringing down an amendment to increase the amount of the allowance and to make a slight increase in the ceiling in so far as a married veteran is concerned, though no increase actually in so far as a single veteran is concerned.
For a number of years the Legion have been asking that the ceiling be raised to $1,200 for a single man and $2,000 for the married veteran. They have quite a good argument in making that request. They use that figure inasmuch as that is, roughly, the figure used by the income tax department. We have taken the stand that people, if they are married, should have an income of $2,000 in order to live, and therefore we do not tax them below that; and we have taken the stand that a single man should have an income of $1,000 in order to live, and so we do not tax him below that.
In placing the ceiling at approximately that figure I think the Legion have good grounds. The present level of $840 is not going to give much leeway. The allowance will be $720. That will mean they can earn only another $120 under the new schedule, if single; and they will be able to earn another $240 in so far as married veterans are concerned. In my opinion that is not sufficient leeway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is only another $144, if married.


Victor Quelch: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says the figure should be $144 instead of $240, as the increase allowed to the married veteran. In so far as the change in section 4 is concerned, I understand that will include widows. What I would be interested in knowing is to how great an extent veterans have used section 4. Perhaps we had better leave that matter until we come to the bill itself. The minister no doubt will be able to tell us just what use has been made of section 4 in the past. We were in favour of the section when it was introduced, but I am afraid it has not benefited the veterans to anything like the extent we had hoped it would.
I did not hear the minister say anything about granting entitlement to the widows of imperial veterans. I hope I missed it. I do not know whether he mentioned that matter or not. Is the minister intending to grant entitlement to the widows of imperial veterans who have resided in this country for 20 years? I do not think he mentioned that matter. If he did not I certainly hope he will give further consideration to it.
For a number of years a plea has been made on behalf of those widows by the Legion and

by members of this house. To me it seems strange that when the widow of an imperial has resided in this country for 20 years we are not prepared to grant that entitlement just because he happened to have the misfortune or the bad luck to die before he had completed 20 years' residence in this country. It seems to me that we are actually adding insult to injury by refusing to grant entitlement to them. The number involved must be small. I am sure it would not cost the government a very large sum to take care of these widows. I am hoping that the minister will give consideration to the plea made on their behalf.
I think it was understood that at this stage we would not say much. I am therefore not going to say anything more at this time. However, I congratulate the minister on at least bringing down an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this legislation is a niggling effort toward what 1 think most of the veterans in this country had hoped and expected would be accomplished by the legislation announced in various ways by the government. It seems to me that the very least the government could have done was to meet the repeated requests of the various veterans organizations in this country such as the Legion, the army, navy and air force veterans and the other affiliated veterans organizations.
In connection with the general consideration of the problem, may I say this. Even if the government had not seen fit to meet the requests of these organizations that the war veterans allowance should be raised to $60 for single men and proportionately for married men, at the very least they should have met the request that the amount of allowable income should be based on the income tax limits of $1,000 and $2,000. The concessions, shall we call them, made by this legislation are not going to meet the needs or the hopes of most of the veterans who are going to come under it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


John Lorne MacDougall: Now, there is a veteran
talking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I am happy to speak for
our burnt-out veterans, although I shall be brief, for we are all agreed that it is a good idea to keep this debate short tonight so the bill can be brought in and we can get on with the legislation itself. I am sure, too, there is general satisfaction that the bill after second reading is to be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs. I think the minister knows now the nature of the battle he is going to have when the
War Veterans Allowance Act measure gets to that committee. There will be some details such as the one regarding widows of imperial veterans, to which the hon. member for Acadia has referred, and some other details as well over which there will be battles; but the real battle the minister knows is going to shape up will be over the question of the ceilings on permissible income.
As those who have already spoken have indicated, the government is to be congratulated, even by those of us on the opposition side, for having raised the amount of the allowance in the case of a single veteran to the figure suggested by the Canadian Legion, namely $60 a month. That is good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government is also to
be congratulated on going as far as it did in the matter of the amount of the allowance for married veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That amount has been $90 a month. The Legion asked that it be $120, and the government has at least gone a little more than half way, up to $108 a month. That is pretty good for the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that "hear, hear"
is on the record. The Liberals are boasting that it is good for them to go a little bit more than half way even when they are meeting a request of the Canadian Legion. They should go all the way.
This 20 per cent idea, Mr. Chairman, does not impress me greatly. It suggests that the previous differential was fair and proper. The Legion did not take that view. The Legion felt that the amount for a married veteran should be twice the amount for a single veteran; and though I congratulate the government on having gone as far as it has in the amount of the allowance for married veterans, I am sorry it has not gone to the full $120 a month.
But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the ceilings on permissible income I think what the government has done is not only extremely disappointing but very unfair. I believe the actual expression used by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was "Aw, nuts" when my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West pointed out that in the case of the single veteran there is no increase in the amount of other income he can earn, according to the terms announced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Let me spell it out for him in case he has not caught up with it in the meantime. As
1414	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act it now stands, a single veteran has an allowance of $50 a month. The ceiling is $720 a year or $60 a month, which entitles him to earn $10 a month in other income. Under the new plan the allowance will be $60 a month and the ceiling will be $840 a year or $70 a month, which allows him to make only the same $10 a month in other income.


Hugues Lapointe: Plus casual earnings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone has referred to
casual earnings.


Hugues Lapointe: I did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that has been there before.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, but not in the terms
it is in now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall see about that
when we get the bill.


Hugues Lapointe: If you had looked before
you spoke you would know more about it.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Know-all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as the permissible
ceiling is concerned, there is no change whatsoever in the amount that is allowed to a single veteran as other income. So far as married veterans are concerned, I need not give the full details that I gave with respect to single veterans. I think hon. members are now aware of the fact that under the present arrangement a married veteran is allowed to make $10 a month more than the amount of his allowance. Under the new arrangement he will be allowed to make $12 a month more, which is an increase of only $2 a month or $24 a year.
In view of the attention that has been paid to this matter by the Legion and other organizations, not only at headquarters but in their branches across the country, and in view of the discussion of this matter in the House of Commons in the debates that took place last session and previous sessions, it does seem to me that the government might have done better than this. If the government could not go as far as the Legion's figures of $1,200 for a single man and $2,000 for a married man, surely they could have provided new ceilings that would have made for some reasonable increase in the amount of other income that could be earned by veterans on the war veterans allowance.
As I have already said, the minister knows this will be the issue that will be fought out in the special committee on veterans affairs to which the bill will be referred. I hope what is being said now and will be said by others tonight before ten o'clock, and what will be said on second reading of the bill,


will soften the minister's heart a bit. In other words, when the bill gets to the committee I hope the minister will pay attention to what is said by the veteran members of that committee and that he will respond to the request I am sure will be made there, that the ceilings on permissible income should be raised to higher figures than he has announced tonight.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I believe that a fair reaction to the proposal announced this evening by the minister would be this. Why chisel; why not do the job right while we are at it? That, I think, sums up the weaknesses in the proposals made by the minister this evening. I need only go over the figures as they have been announced by him. Take for example, the case of a single veteran. He has been eligible for $50 a month plus permissive earnings of $10, making a total of $60. He is now to get a war veterans allowance of $60 a month, but he is still only eligible for permissive earnings in the same old amount of $10 a month.
Where does that leave him when he reaches the age of 70. Every other person in the country who reaches the age of 70 gets $40 a month automatically in addition to whatever he or she may be receiving on reaching that age. This has been one of the main complaints about the war veterans allowance, that when the veteran reached 70 years of age he did not get the full benefit of old age security. Under the ceiling announced by the minister this evening a veteran on reaching 70 years of age will still not be able to get the full amount of old age security. He will only get $10 a month, while the civilian who did not serve in the forces gets an increase in his actual cash receipts of $40 a month.
The war veterans allowance recipient will have been receiving $60 a month war veterans allowance, and then will only be allowed an additional $10 when he reaches the age of 70. I repeat this means that he can only get $10 by way of old age security payment instead of the full $40. The ceiling should have been made high enough so that a veteran on reaching 70 would get his war veterans allowance plus the full $40 old age security payment.
I point out to the minister that the unanimous recommendation of the special committee on veterans affairs of 1952 with respect to the war veterans allowance was in these words:
Your committee further recommends to the government continued and sympathetic study of the needs and requirements of recipients of war veterans allowance, keeping in mind the recommendations of veterans organizations in that respect and particularly with regard to permissive income.

War Veterans Allowance Act
That was the recommendation three years ago, and today we get this half measure after waiting for that period.
Last year the special committee on veterans affairs again made a recommendation which referred to the submissions made by the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans associations and the Canadian non-pensioned veterans widows, particularly dealing with the changes they had urged in the War Veterans Allowance Act. The report refers to raising the amounts of allowances payable thereunder and also raising the level of permissive income. As hon. members know, some of us had tried to get better reports both in 1952 and last year, but this was the unanimous recommendation of the committee:
Your committee recommends that the government give sympathetic consideration to the said submissions.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, to you and to the members of the committee of this house that these changes are not good enough, particularly regarding the permissive income. This question will have to be fought out in the committee. I am confident that the veterans of this country are not going to be satisfied with such a small improvement with regard to permissive income. I repeat, why on earth should we chisel when at last we are in a position to do something about this War Veterans Allowance Act? Why not make the proper amendments when we have the opportunity to do so?
I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that here again we have the government tying the war veterans allowance to the ordinary welfare legislation. This point was made by the minister himself last year when we were discussing war veterans allowances. He argued that we could not get too far away from the measures dealing with civilians. He took the same stand before the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion last summer. I have a newspaper report here of August 3 in which the minister is reported as having said at the dominion convention:
The allowances had always been linked with old age pensions and were specially designed to meet the needs of veterans with combat service.
"This being the case, any major changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act-as some which have been suggested-cannot help but have serious financial implications in other fields of government activities."
Well, the position is not the same at all. These men have a claim as of right for services rendered. These men were willing to risk their lives for this nation. The war veterans allowance recipient is a front-line soldier. The only other veteran who can qualify is one who is in receipt of a small pension, but primarily the war veterans allowance was for Canada's front-line fighting
men. They have a claim on this country as of right. Their claim is not in the same category at all as the claim of welfare recipients. I am not quarrelling for a minute with the payments made to others. I simply say that the basis of the claims is different. The two groups cannot be tied together. If they are, there never will be adequate justice done to the veterans of this nation.
Unfortunately these changes the minister has announced tonight seem to me to have been made on the basis of tying them in with all the other social welfare legislation. I can only express the hope that all of the members serving on the special committee on veterans affairs which is to be set up, as well as the general membership of the house, will not be satisfied with these provisions and will insist that the amendments be broadened out so they will do justice to the front-line veterans of the nation.


Frederick George Hahn: I, too, was very happy to hear the minister suggest that there was going to be a change in the War Veterans Allowance Act, for several reasons. However, Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member who has just taken his seat.
There is one factor that should be taken into consideration that has not been thought of up to this time. It is that in British Columbia and Alberta the old age pensioner gets the regular $40 a month, and under a means test he gets an additional $15 which gives him $55 per month. This means $110 per month for a husband and wife. The married war veteran in this country today under the War Veterans Allowance Act is only permitted $108 per month. It is true the veteran is permitted to earn over and above that to a minor extent. I understood it was about $10 per month, and that is not a great deal.
I would find fault with the fact that there is no change in the amount of permissive income, as some of the members who spoke prior to me discovered. More particularly, it is going to be difficult for any member to go back to the province from which I come and explain to the war veteran that he is not eligible for at least an amount equivalent to that which the married old age pensioner receives if he is in receipt of old age assistance. I know the difference is only a matter of $2, but these men were willing to sacrifice their all for their country. I would say; that we are not sacrificing our all when we are willing to give them only $2 below the minimum amount received by an old age pensioner under ordinary circumstances.
In these circumstances I consider we are failing to look after these citizens. We are failing to keep a bond with them which they
1416	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act had been led to believe we might carry out when this War Veterans Allowance Act became a reality. I look forward with some anticipation to the introduction of the bill so we can discuss the matter at greater length. In the meantime I should like the minister to reconcile the figures he has given with the amounts some of these other people are capable of getting.


Mr. Churchill:: I do not rise to congratulate the minister at all, Mr. Chairman. Some members on this side of the house have suggested that he should be congratulated, but I do not think so. I feel this is a niggardly arrangement with regard to a problem of great importance in Canada.
Of course I have not been impressed with the activities of the minister of this department. I feel he has missed an opportunity on many occasions to do something effectively, powerfully and wholeheartedly in favour of the veterans. He has had an opportunity here on this question of war veterans allowances, and again he has missed that opportunity. He has come forward with a small concession. He introduced some camouflage talk about raising the ceiling on permissive income which on examination, as shown by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is no change at all for single persons and for married veterans on war veterans allowance amounts to only $2 per month. It is just a bit of camouflage to make the thing appear better, and I think the minister should deal in a different way with matters of this nature.
Three years ago I pointed out, when we were discussing those receiving war veterans allowances, that their number is dwindling. The report of the department shows that they are dying off at the rate of a thousand a year. It is a declining obligation on the part of the government, so far as the veterans of the first world war are concerned; and that declining obligation would lead one to think that in circumstances such as these, with the rising cost of living and the increasing age of these men, some more generous arrangement might be made.
The government, however, is just trying to sit them out. They will all have died off before very long. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra pointed out the importance of the war veterans allowance-watered down by various ministerial interpretations in recent years-based, as it was originally, on service in an actual theatre of war. These men who are now 60 years of age and over are the ones who served in a theatre of war but were not wounded. They went through the same experiences as anyone else who was over there but, fortunately, they were not


wounded. The fact remains that they certainly suffered as much as any of the disability pensioners from their experiences in the trenches and from the general activities of the campaign between 1914 and 1918.
Unfortunately people are beginning to forget what occurred during that war. I propose that the Minister of National Defence should get busy and have completed the official history of that war so that people who are discussing this problem affecting our citizens on war veterans allowances will know something about what those men went through during that period of time. I took this matter up with his predecessor. However, the story has not been told officially, and we are beginning to forget it. Certain people are glossing it over, and are trying to pretend that these men are in the same category as civilians who are receiving assistance under the old age security program.
I hope the committee will deal at greater length with the points mentioned in the bill.


Ernest George Hansell: I wish to say only a word-


John Horace Dickey: Have another look at the clock.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman-


John Horace Dickey: A veteran.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not appreciate the interjections made by the hon. member for Halifax at any time. Might I advise him that if he wants to get a promotion he must know that one of the prerequisites to a ministerial post is to know when to keep quiet. He is spoiling his chances when he interrupts, and does not carry the office with dignity.


John Horace Dickey: Next joke, please.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend is the next joke. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take much time, but I have a number of Legion organizations in my constituency the members of which get in touch with me from time to time. I am not going to be too critical of the measure, because I believe it represents an advance in our veterans legislation. It may not be all we want but, as a matter of fact, we never do get all we want here. However, it is a step in the right direction and, as one member said the other day, we have to be thankful for small mercies. I wish to thank the minister for the way in which he handles his department and the many cases we send to him. I believe he is conscientious and would like to do all he can for the veterans.
I should like to ask him a question, but before doing so I would say there is no class of people in Canada more deserving of consideration than the veterans of the two world

wars. Most of those who are receiving war veterans allowances are veterans of the first world war. Certainly none could be more deserving than the widows of those men, who are left with practically nothing. I ask that the committee do all it can to bring in the best possible recommendations under the bill and would urge that, if necessary, it amend the bill.
I think we appreciate the work veterans affairs committees of the past have done, and I trust this committee will have the widest possible powers under our rules of procedure.
I would urge that the terms of reference may be made as broad as possible, and that those who are in charge of the committee give a wide interpretation to their duties so the Legion and others may present all their desires, and so that all the facts and figures may be made available with a view to doing as much as possible for the veterans, particularly in the matter of permissible income.
The minister may not have the figures before him to answer the question I wish to ask, but I shall be prepared to wait and he may give them to me later. My question is this. Has the government calculated the amount it would cost because of other cases that might come under the act if the permissible income were raised? My reason for asking the question is this. The permissible income for a single veteran is $840. Generally speaking a man will earn either considerably more than that by reason of having a permanent position, or he will earn almost nothing. It is unusual to find an in-between position. If the permissible income were raised it would bring in a number, but I think not a great number. Has he calculated the extra cost?
I would urge that the committee do as much as it can and I am sure it will, because there is no member of the committee or of the house, and I include the minister, who is not interested in doing all he can for the veterans. It comes down to a matter of whether or not the government can get the money, of whether the government can say to the minister, "We will give you so many more millions of dollars". That is really the crux of the whole matter.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, many points have been raised this evening following my short statement. I think hon. members will agree there will be full opportunity for debate *when we reach second reading of the bill following the resolution. If hon. members are agreeable I would prefer to avail myself of that opportunity to answer some of the criticisms and questions put by hon. members.
International Rivers
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Han-sell) has just put one specific question to me. Unfortunately I have not at hand the exact figures on the increased liability which would be brought about by raising the ceiling on permissible income to various levels. I have that elsewhere, and I shall be glad to give this information to the house when we are on second reading or in committee. I can say this to the committee, sir. The proposal which I have put before the house tonight is estimated to increase the liability on the item of war veterans allowance alone by between $9,225,000 and $9,500,000.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Shaw.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: If it is
the will of the house would you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I shall be happy to commence my remarks, if it is your ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


John Horne Blackmore: The reason for this amendment we are now debating is twofold: first, to gain information, and second, to disseminate information through Hansard, the press and radio. We are not staging a filibuster, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce unfairly suggested-


Mr. Tucker:: It is a good imitation.


John Horne Blackmore: -on Friday, February 11, as reported at page 1100 of Hansard. I am really astounded that after the very small amount of discussion we carried on, our opposition should be talking about a filibuster. It indicates that in Canada parliament has fallen to a contemptibly low level when people cannot talk any longer than we have talked about a matter of the importance of this bill without having a smear made against them.
The meaning of the Social Credit stand is not that the Social Crediters have committed
1418	HOUSE OF
International Rivers
themselves to the support of the present proposed Castlegar dam project. That project will most likely be modified as improvements are conceived during the progress of study and of the negotiations. Modifications are already being contemplated, as a matter of fact. Consequently, to say that Social Credit -ers have committed themselves to the Castlegar project is just simply to be wrong.
What Social Crediters have committed themselves to is the proposition that Premier Bennett, the regularly chosen and elected premier of the sovereign province of British Columbia, is, and must be freely recognized as being, possessed of and constitutionally clothed with full competence to govern British Columbia in respect of all matters coming within the constitutional jurisdiction of British Columbia; and that Mr. R. E. Sommers, the regularly chosen minister of lands and forests and mines, is, and must be recognized as being, fully competent to govern British Columbia in respect of all matters coming under his department, one of such matters being the management of British Columbia's rivers.
That is the position we have taken. Let me repeat, it is the principle of provincial responsibility and competence as regards the rivers of that province. It is that principle to which Social Crediters have committed themselves and stand now irrevocably committed to.
May I quote from my speech, as reported on page 1029 of Hansard, column 2, to indicate the line we are following:
Why then take the power and authority away from the province, which will do the job well, and put it in the hands of the dominion, which may or may not do the job well? That is the great point that has to be dealt with.
I wonder how it was that our press reporters overlooked those words? So many of them did. Again, on the same page, I made these remarks:
Details in my remarks will be based upon the plan as outlined by Mr. R. E. Sommers, British

Columbia minister of lands and forests and minister of mines, in his radio address over radio station CBU Vancouver, on November 29, 1954.
That put the matter completely beyond any possibility of doubt. May I read from two statements, one by Mr. Michael Barkway in his article "Water Over the Boundary" in the Financial Post of February 19, 1955, in which he says:
The Social Credit members in the house-an inflated bakers' dozen-have been holding up second reading of the bill out of loyalty to the Social Credit government of British Columbia. They have, in the process, committed themselves to a defence of the British Columbia government's agreement with the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical company of the United States for construction of a dam at Castlegar at the foot of the Arrow lakes.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Let them call it ten o'clock. I asked that it be called ten o'clock. I am quite ready to go on until eleven o'clock if you want me to.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: I have another article by Tempus, which appeared in the Financial Times of February 18, 1955, which has this to say:
Behind Social Credit Premier Bennett, the Social Credit crowd are lining up solid. Against it are the Liberals. With the Liberals are the C.C.F.
The Conservatives are somewhere out in no man's land.
Mr. Barkway is wrong; Tempus is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.


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

Aircraft Warning Systems


[Stage Direction]
On April 8, 1954, the governments of Canada and the United States issued a joint announcement, which after referring to the construction of the "Pinetree" radar chain, announced plans for the establishment of a further radar system "generally to the north of the settled territory in Canada". The Canadian government subsequently decided that it would be appropriate, as a part of its contribution to the common defence requirements of the two countries, for Canada to undertake responsibility for financing, constructing and operating this new system, which is generally referred to as the "mid-Canada line".
During the time that plans for the mid-Canada line have been under development, studies have also been going on to determine the feasibility of providing even earlier warning of the approach of hostile aircraft. As a result of these studies, the Canadian and United States governments have agreed in principle that there is a need for the establishment of a distant early warning line across the far northern part of North America, and have directed that detailed planning for such a line should be initiated at once. The basis of participation by the two countries in the construction and operation of the line, and the division of costs, will be determined after the detailed plans have been considered and agreed.
In developing the complete system for warning of the approach of hostile aircraft and for the control of interceptor forces, the two governments have followed a policy building outward from the likely target areas. Thus the first step, which has now been largely completed, was the construction of the main control and warning radar installations in the continental United States and the populated part of Canada. The second step, which is now under way, is the provision of the mid-Canada line. A third measure, the need for which has now been agreed upon between the two governments, will be the provision of a distant early warning line across the most northerly practicable part of North America. Portions of the complete warning and control system in Canada will be extended to seaward on both flanks of the continent by the United States.
The establishment of these North American defence installations is a costly and difficult task, which is being undertaken because our security requires it and is being accomplished successfully because of the readiness of Canadians and Americans to work together in a common cause.


[Stage Direction]
On September 27, 1954, the defence departments of Canada and the United States issued a joint announcement on the progress being made in the development of a comprehensive jointly operated system for warning of the approach of hostile aircraft and for the control of interceptor aircraft. Four main elements of a warning and control system now appear to be practicable, namely: the main control and warning radar installations in the populated part of Canada (the jointly operated "Pinetree" network) and in the United States, which are now in operation; a warning line north of the settled areas of Canada (the mid-Canada line) being built by Canada; a warning line across the most northerly practicable part of North America (the distant early warning line); and portions of the complete warning and control system in Canada to be extended to seaward on both flanks of the continent by the United States.
In the announcement of September 27, it was stated that the Canadian and United States governments had agreed in principle
that there was a need for a distant early warning line across the far northern part of North America and had directed that detailed planning for such a line should be initiated at once.
As a consequence of the progress which has been made since the announcement last September, the two governments have now decided to proceed with the construction of the distant early warning line.
Experience has shown that projects of this nature can be carried out most effectively by vesting responsibility for all phases of the work of construction and installation in a single authority. In the joint statement of September 27, referred to above, it was announced that Canada had undertaken the responsibility for the construction of the mid-Canada line. In the case of the distant early warning line it has been agreed that although both Canada and the United States will participate in the project, responsibility for the work of construction and installation should be vested in the United States.
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, February 23, 1955