1955-03-21

Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I wish to lay on the table copies in English and in French of a communique on the review of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, together with a brief press release that was issued this morning. I should also say that, as stated in the house on Friday last by the minister, the text of the agreement has not yet been received but is expected shortly.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: On behalf of the Minister of Transport I beg leave to table the following reports for the year 1954 in English and in French:
(1)	Annual report of the Canadian National Railways.
(2)	Annual report of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited.
(3)	Auditors' report to parliament in respect of Canadian National Railway system and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porfage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier):
That the name of Mr. Holowach be substituted for that of Mr. Low on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; and
That the name of Mr. Hardie be substituted for that of Mr. Decore, and that the name of Mr. Power (St. John's West) be substituted for that of Mr. Pickersgill, and that the name of Mr. Harkness be substituted for that of Mr. Fulton, and that the name of Mr. Churchill be substituted for that of Mr. Starr, and that the name of Mr. McBain be substituted for that of Mr. Michener on the special committee on estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Weir moves, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf, that- shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the motion does not contain the suggestion or rather the words that the name of Mr. Lesage be substituted for that of Mr. Lafontaine.


Mr. Speaker:: I had better read the motion. It is as follows:
That the name of Mr. Holowach be substituted for that of Mr. Low on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; and
That the name of Mr. Hardie be substituted for that of Mr. Decore, and that the name of Mr. Power (St. John's West) be substituted for that of Mr. Pickersgill, and that the name of Mr. Harkness be substituted for that of Mr. Fulton, and that the name of Mr. Churchill be substituted for that of Mr. Starr, and that the name of Mr. McBain be substituted for that of Mr. Michener on the special committee on estimates.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Gilbert Weir: I apologize for it, Mr. Speaker, but there is an error. This motion is not the same as the motion contained in last Friday's Votes and Proceedings. In the motion the name of Mr. Lesage appears as a substitution for Mr. Lafontaine. It is a typewritten sheet that I was using when I spoke today. The correct motion is the one that appears in Votes and Proceedings of Friday last.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the hon. member is moving a motion which is similar in terms to that which appears in Friday's Votes and Proceedings?


William Gilbert Weir: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: That would include the
following words:
that the name of Mr. Lesage be substituted for that of Mr. Lafontaine.


William Gilbert Weir: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this motion is debatable under the circumstances in which it now appears. I thought perhaps we could have had this matter discussed and disposed of on Friday but that was apparently not the desire of some hon. members. I rise now for the purpose of moving an amendment that will have the effect of ensuring that the minister of the department whose estimates are before the

Committees of the House special committee on estimates will not be a member of that body while his departmental estimates are being considered.
I fully realize that it is unusual to oppose these motions inasmuch as they are, generally speaking, the results of discussion within parties and between parties and relate to the personnel which it is desired by those parties to have represent them on these various special committees. But as is perfectly obvious from the inclusion of the name of Mr. Lesage -and I am using the name as it appears in the motion-the effect of this particular change will be to appoint the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to be a member of that committee, and it has been arranged that it is the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources which are next to be considered by the committee. This is the only way in which we in this party can make the points which we feel very strongly indeed, namely that the minister of a department should not be a member of the committee while the estimates of that department are being considered. If it were not for that feature of this motion, I would of course not be speaking to it or objecting to it in any way.
We have a particular reason for our feeling that the minister of a department whose estimates are before the committee should not be a member of the committee during that time. This committee on estimates is, to a great extent, an experimental committee in so far as this parliament is concerned. It is therefore, I am sure, the feeling of all hon. members that it is necessary to get it off to a good start and to set it up on a basis where its proceedings and reports will command the support and the confidence not only of the members of the committee but of the house as a whole. As I understood it when it was discussed, its purpose was to make a close, impartial and unfettered scrutiny of the estimates of various departments. We feel very strongly that it is not conducive to such a scrutiny as I have described if the minister of the department concerned is a member of the committee while his estimates are before it.
I find support for that view in the experience of what takes place elsewhere. I am informed that the experience in the United Kingdom supports the view that I am expressing here. I realize fully of course that the United Kingdom practice and experience are not in any sense binding upon us, but I do suggest that it is a very useful guide. They have had a committee on estimates that has functioned for well over 20 years now, and from what I have been able to find it is regarded on all sides there as a very useful 

committee. I am informed that the suggestion would not be considered for a moment that the minister of the department whose estimates are under investigation should be appointed to that committee. It is true, I understand, that on occasion there they do appoint parliamentary assistants as members of these committees, and I can assure you, sir, that we on this side would have no objection whatsoever, in the case of a department having a parliamentary assistant, if the *parliamentary assistant were to be suggested as a member of the committee.
But I take the liberty to say here, and I say it deliberately because I think it is important that the committee be set up on a proper basis, that the brief course of the existence of this committee confirms us in the opinion that ministers should not be members while their departments are being investigated. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask hon. members to consider some of the reasons why this should not be done, reasons which are based on the experience we have already had. If the minister whose department is before the committee is a member of that committee then he will obviously have views as to how the committee should conduct its investigation and in what manner it should take up the estimates of the department. Certainly that has been the experience with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Whenever a suggestion was made as to how the consideration of its estimates should be conducted, the minister, after he had had himself made a member, took a very definite position on each suggestion. He expressed his opinion the moment after any motion had been moved which had a bearing upon the course and method of inquiry and he expressed himself, as was his right when he was a member, in no uncertain terms and in most cases as very definitely opposed to the suggestions that had been made. I submit that whatever may be the view of the merits of the suggestions which were made-and I am not going to discuss the merits here because this is not the time and place-the fact is that if that is to be the pattern and the minister is going to express himself against such suggestions very frequently, it makes of every such suggestion a minor test of confidence in the government. Quite obviously if the minister expresses his opinion one way it will be very difficult indeed, human nature being what it is, and I think this would happen in any committee no matter what party formed the government, for the members of that committee who are supporters of the government to take a position opposite to that of the minister.

The result is that the presence of the minister and the expression of his opinion as to how the inquiry and consideration should be conducted have an effect on the committee which is out of all proportion to the fact that the opinion is expressed by an individual. It becomes something quite different from an expression of opinion of an individual; it becomes an expression of opinion of the minister and is so regarded. The result is, as I have said, that every such incident is turned into a minor test of confidence in the government. I suggest to hon. members, and I ask them to consider the matter as one of concern to parliament as a whole, that it is not desirable that the very course and nature of the committee's inquiry, that is to say, its decisions as to how it is going to conduct the inquiry, should be thus influenced by the minister of the department whose estimates are being considered.
It is our feeling, and a feeling we hold very strongly, that here parliament is investigating and considering estimates placed before it by the government and that it should not be a party matter but should be a group of private members of the house from all parties who, as distinct from the executive, meet to examine the proposals for expenditure placed before parliament by the executive. The point I am making is not one of interest exclusively to opposition members of the committee. It is a point of principle which I submit should be considered just as vitally and carefully by members on the government side, and one which should appeal to them as much as it does to members on this side of the house.
It is perfectly true that there are occasions when ministers quite normally are made members of special and standing parliamentary committees. For instance, there is the committee on the C.B.C. It is usual, although not invariable, for the Minister of National Revenue to be made a member of that committee. As I recall, the same is true of the sessional committee on government-owned railways and shipping. The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are usually members of that committee when Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines are respectively being considered. But I point out that there is a very real difference between these committees and a committee of the type we are considering now in that these committees do not consider estimates of a department as a whole. It is true that the ministers I have mentioned are responsible to the house for the agencies of government or corwn corporations being considered. That is a very different thing 50433-139
Committees of the House from the position in a committee considering the estimates of a whole department and the administration of the department itself.
Examples much more directly applicable to the situation we now have, and which are indeed compelling precedents, can be found in our own experience in the standing committee on external affairs and the standing committee on banking and commerce. The whole estimates of the Department of External Affairs are referred to the standing committee which considers the details of administration of that department. I think if members will consult the record they will find I am correct in saying that it is not the practice that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should ever be a member of that committee. The same is true of the banking and commerce committee. It is very rarely indeed, if ever, that the Minister of Finance is made a member of that committee. I suggest that the precedent of the external affairs committee is exactly in point because there you have the estimates of the department referred by the house to the committee for consideration.
I would not suggest for a moment, and it is not my purpose to suggest, that the minister should not come before the committee on estimates. Obviously he must be there, but it is perfectly possible and, I submit, appropriate for the minister to be there even though not a member, and to attend as a witness or in any other capacity which the committee itself might devise for him. As a witness he could give to the committee all the information that committee asked for or wanted. He could answer questions fully and frankly, but he would not be in a position where he could express his opinion, as of right, every time a suggestion was made as to the method of conducting this inquiry, which I submit to you, sir, is a matter for the committee to decide for itself. It should be uninfluenced by the views of a particular minister.
Now, I do not know what other members or ministers may take part in this debate, but I should think it is quite likely the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill) will do so. I should think it is quite likely he will say that he appeared before the committee for a time, not as a member but in the status of a witness, and that he found it desirable and considered it essential and proper that he should be allowed to make a statement which would be in the nature of a statement of privilege. He may say that it was suggested that since he was only a witness and not a member he did not have, as of right, the opportunity to make
2198	HOUSE OF
Committees of the House that statement. This, sir, is quite true, but I point out to you what was said there and what would, I am quite sure, be said on any similar occasion. That was, that if the minister were involved or if he felt the matter involved him to such an extent- whether personally or in his official capacity-that he should be heard, he would be given the right to be heard.
I point out to you that on this occasion, and I mention this specifically because I expect the minister himself may make some reference to it, the minister was unanimously accorded the right to speak on his question of privilege immediately that he sought that right. I use the word "immediately", but qualified only to this extent, that after some quite brief preliminary discussion as to his position and as to whether he had the right as a witness to demand that he be heard, he was accorded the right. The matter was discussed quite briefly, and in the course of the discussion it was stated by those of us who raised the point that we felt if the minister wanted to make a statement he should be heard. What we wanted to have decided was his status before the committee. This appears at page 109 of the records of the committee:


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that the minister he heard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Unanimously.
The chairman himself emphasized the unanimity. It would always be unanimously agreed, if a minister felt he had to make a statement of that sort, that he be given the right to be heard.
But that is a very different thing again from the right which the ministers will now have if they are members of this committee, to express opinions as to how the inquiry should be conducted, and how the committee's task should be carried out, and to vote on suggestions made as to how their estimates should be considered.
I think, sir, that is, in as brief a compass as I can give it, the main outline of the considerations before us. I suggest in addition that there are some anomalies which arise if ministers are to appear in any other capacity than as witnesses. As I understand it, it was the feeling of a considerable number of members here that we should be able to call and examine directly the departmental officials. Then, when it was decided, as it was not by the committee but here, and we found ourselves confronted with a fait accompli when the minister appeared as a member rather than as a witness, a question was raised as to the role of departmental officials. Must we appoint all of them to be


members of the committee or in what sort of absurd position were we to be? If the minister's position was that he could speak to us only when he was a member, what about those departmental officials who would appear? We were given the extraordinary answer that these gentlemen were not there as witnesses or as members of the committee, but they were there as "emanations of the minister". Shades of Mackenzie King! I just wonder what more ridiculous position one could get into than that position which was thrust upon the minister as a result of the position he himself took, a position he was forced into as a result of his earlier position that he had to be a member of the committee and could not be a witness.
Because we feel that it is essential this committee should get off to a good start, and because on the basis of past experience we know that if we do not raise an objection now it will be held up to us in subsequent sessions as a precedent, we feel we must record our protest at this stage as strongly as we can. I can imagine some hon. members might say -why do you not see how the thing works during this session and then before another session we will consider any changes that should be made on the basis of our experience in the committee after the minister had himself appointed as a member? I recall that when we wanted to raise the question in the committee, we were criticized because we had not raised it in the house. We were told, you did not object in the house so you should not object here. I know quite well that if we let the matter go to another session then we would be told, you did not object last session so why are you objecting now? I believe, sir, this is the appropriate time, and this is the only time, when protests and suggestions of this sort should be made.
In my submission, they should be made at the time when we first embark on the course of this committee so that we will have an opportunity of considering all the implications, and what is to be done to try to get this committee set up on a basis that will enable it to do its job of a close, impartial and unfettered scrutiny of the estimates of government spending. I submit it can only do that job if it is not influenced, as for the reasons I have given it must be influenced, by the presence of ministers as members. This has the result of turning every suggestion as to how the inquiry should be conducted into a test of confidence. We are just not going to get the serious and non-partisan consideration of the estimates and of all possible economies in government spending that we should if the committee proceedings are conducted in that atmosphere. I submit to you, sir, and to all

hon. members, that that will be the atmosphere and must be the atmosphere if ministers are to be members of the committee while their estimates are before that committee.
If they want to be members of the committee while the estimates of other departments are being considered, there could of course be no objection whatever. The result of my amendment would be to leave, so far as I am concerned, the other personnel of the committee unchanged. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the words "and that the name of Mr. Lesage be substituted for that of Mr. Lafontaine" where they appear at lines 6 and 7 thereof.
I point out, just for the information of hon. members and in case inferentially any other suggestion should have been made or should appear, that in moving this amendment I have no criticism whatever of the individual minister whose name appears in the motion. Under normal circumstances, there would be no question of opposing a motion for change in the personnel of a committee. This opposition is confined exclusively to the fact that the hon. member whose name appears is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whose estimates will be before the committee tomorrow. The motion is directed exclusively towards that situation.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask a question, and I shall ask it of the house leader. When the estimates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment as the only member of the government who has had experience on this committee which the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) rightly described as an experimental committee. It was my understanding, sir, and I think it was the understanding of most members of the house, that this committee, so far as it could be, was to be a miniature of the committee of supply, and that it would conduct its scrutiny of the estimates in the same way as the committee of supply itself, with certain modifications which I intend to mention in a moment or two.
Now, the hon. member for Kamloops has said that he was raising this matter as a point of principle. I intend to reply on exactly the same basis. The hon. member for Kamloops gave an excellent description of the way in which our constitution could be amended to make it conform with the American system. And not only did he do 50433-1394
Committees of the House that, but he actually used the words, "examination by private members, distinct from the executive."
Now, my understanding, sir, of our system of government is that the executive is not distinct from the legislative body, and it is certainly not distinct from the body which votes public money; those of us who in this house are members of the executive are also members of parliament, we are here as members of parliament, and we have the same rights as any other members of parliament. And, what is more, the whole basis of our system is that the ministers must retain the confidence of a majority of members in this house. Surely, as members of parliament, ministers are entitled to all the rights of members of parliament for the purpose of maintaining that confidence. It would be wholly invidious and, I suggest, fundamentally unconstitutional, to deny to a minister, when the most fundamental of all his duties is being considered, namely his responsibility for his department-it would be invidious to deny him the same right to speak that other members of parliament have. And that is precisely the purpose of the hon. member's amendment.
He said it might be all right for the Minister of National Revenue, who is the channel of communication between this house and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to be a member of a committee in that context, and he gave one or two other examples. But, he said, when the whole department was being considered, the minister should be kept out-doors.
Now, I think that is the most incredible proposition that I have ever heard put forward in any British legislative assembly, anywhere.
Now, as a matter of fact-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure the minister does not wish to use an expression I did not use. He must know there is a great difference between "kept out-doors", which is the expression he used, and being allowed to come as a witness, which were the words I used.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will come to that in a moment. Perhaps my expression was a little bit strong. Perhaps I should not have said "kept out-doors"; perhaps I should have said "put out-doors", whenever private members wanted to do so.
As a matter of fact I found myself in the position which I was obliged to describe -and I think hon. members know that I am pretty cautious and careful in my expressions-as being comparable to that of a prisoner in the box.
2200	HOUSE OF
Committees of the House


Edmund Davie Fulton: And you had yourself made a member of the jury.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Precisely, which I was elected to be by the people of Bonavista-Twillingate, just as the hon. member was elected for Kamloops-and I think the electors of Bonavista-Twillingate are as well represented.
I come now to the hon. member's suggestion that the minister might be a witness. Now, of course, when the question arose as to what the minister was in this committee, it was clear that he was not a witness, because the committee had no power to send for witnesses.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because of limitations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Kamloops has interjected that it was because of limitations. I admit it would be within the power of the house to give the committee power to send for witnesses; and if it were given the power to send for witnesses perhaps it could call as a witness a member of the house-although I must say that calling members of the House of Commons as witnesses strikes me as a little strange.
However, I do not pose as an expert on the rules, and I do not wish to express any firm opinion on the point. But I do say this, that if a minister can be a witness and if he appears only as a witness, then he cannot intervene in the proceedings in any way when any other witness is to be heard.
Now, I assume that any other witnesses could be of only two kinds, either members of the staff of the department or outsiders who are presumed to have some knowledge of the department.
As for members of the staff of his department, I shall have something to say about that later on. But I wish to say something first about the so-called expert witnesses who might be called from outside the department. I cannot think there could be any constitutional objection to the house, if it wishes, giving to the committee the power to send for witnesses who are not public servants, if the house thought that was desirable. Personally I do not think it would advance the work of the committee. I do not think there would be any constitutional objection to the committee having the power to call witnesses; but look at the position a minister would be in if he was not a member of the committee in those circumstances. Here would be someone posing as an expert in matters concerning the minister's department, and making statements, and being asked questions about the minister's department, and the minister would be left without any power whatsoever to defend himself.


That is surely contrary to our conception of the way government is carried on under our parliamentary system. And, indeed, the chief whip reminds me that, not at the present session, but only a session or two ago one of the committees was sitting and certain allegations were made-it was the committee on agriculture. Allegations were made about my right hon. friend, and it was necessary to appoint him a member of the committee so that he was in a position to defend himself and his department-which, surely, ministers have the right to do, as long as we are responsible to the House of Commons for the administration of our departments.
Therefore I suggest that making the minister a witness, if there are other witnesses going to be called, would be totally inadequate.
Then, the hon. member referred to the other kind of witness. He made the suggestion that the committee should have the right to call officials of the minister's department as witnesses, without regard to the minister's wishes in the matter. It is the minister, sir, who is responsible for the administration of his department. And it seems to me that if a parliamentary committee-I said this in the committee in camera and I will say it here in the House of Commons, in public-that if a parliamentary committee insisted upon calling as witnesses the officials of a minister's department, and the minister took exception to it, there would be only one proper course for that minister to take, and that would be to submit his resignation at once.
That does not mean that officials cannot be heard in these committees. As soon as I appeared before the committee I dealt with that question, and I think the matter is important enough that I should read to the house what I said at that time. I may say that not one member of the committee dissented from my view. This is what I said on February 24, as it appears at page 10 of the proceedings of the committee:
The view I have taken on what I should do is to use my own judgment when a question is asked as to whether it is the type of question I should take the responsibility of answering myself or the type of question I should ask one of the officers of the department to answer.
I do not intend myself to answer questions which do not involve policy and which do involve detail, because I think it would be quite ridiculous for me to turn to one of these gentlemen here and ask him to whisper the answer to me. He is far more capable of giving the answer himself because I do not pretend to be an expert on the details of the department. However, I would like it clearly understood that any question which I wish to answer myself I have the right to answer exclusively.

It seems to me, it we have the responsibility as ministers, we must take it and that is the only right attitude to take in a matter of this kind.
The hon. member for Kamloops made what I was going to describe as his feeble little joke about the word "emanations". I think it is an absolutely correct description of the position of the officials before a committee of this kind. Their position is in no respect different from their position in the committee of supply except this. In the committee of supply they whisper to the minister and the minister says out loud what they have said to him, if he feels so inclined. Upstairs, we bring to the committee officers in whom we have confidence to answer questions we are willing to have them answer on our behalf, and we take the responsibility for what they say. In other words they are simply, if you do not like the word "emanations", agents, but that is the status in which they appear.
It seems to me that if vje want to import the United States' system, if we want to have a division of powers, if we want to exclude the executive from the house itself, we should adopt this amendment; but if we want to maintain our system of responsible government, it should be turned down. And I hope that all hon. members, even those sitting around the hon. member for Kamloops, will remember that reluctantly, after it had been gained, the Conservatives of 100 years ago accepted responsible government.
I want to make one other point, sir. In bringing on this amendment the hon. member for Kamloops has made a very serious attack upon the rights of minority parties in this house. If we, the majority party, may not choose from among our own members those we want to sit on the committee, how can the minority parties safeguard the right to choose the ones they want? If the hon. member for Kamloops can rise in his place and move that Mr. Lesage should not be substituted for Mr. Lafontaine, what is to stop the Secretary of State for External Affairs from moving that Mr. Fulton be excluded from the committee and that Mr. Hamilton be put in his place?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have been expecting that any day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not for one minute think that anybody in the majority in this house would ever do such a thing. But I suggest that in moving this amendment at all, the hon. member for Kamloops is spreading abroad ideas that are pretty subversive of parliamentary government.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for
Committees of the House Kamloops does raise several issues, and it will not be surprising if, as they try to think about this question, hon. members will be confused because of the various issues that are raised. It does seem to me that we shall have to make our decision having regard to what we regard as the most important of the principles raised by this amendment.
I wish to say first of all that I regret that the government has decided that it wants the minister in charge of the department whose estimates are before the committee to be made a member of the committee. The government has that right, but I regret they have decided to try to do it in that way. It would have been much better if the government had carried on with what apparently was its original intention of having the minister whose estimates are before the department appear before the committee as a witness.
I indicate, as support for my statement that that apparently was the government's original intention, the fact that when the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration were referred to that committee, for the first few meetings the minister appeared there as a witness. It was only when it was found that he could not speak quite as often as he wished to that he was made a member of the committee. I suggest that that, together with the main motion before us now, indicates that the government has decided on a change. But in my view it would have been much better had the minister continued to be a witness before the committee.
I speak as one who for a number of years has been a member of the external affairs committee. I can say it is quite satisfactory on that committee that the Secretary of State for External Affairs appears before us not as a member of the committee but as our chief witness.
The second thing I want to say is that, along with the hon. member for Kamloops and others, I regret that the committee on estimates was not given the power to send for persons, papers and records. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said a few moments ago that the hon. member for Kamloops had found it not as easy as he thought to remedy that situation. The reason he did not find it easy was because of the strong objection thereto on the government side. It could be remedied very easily any time the government decides that it would strengthen the usefulness of the committee to give to it from this house the power to send for persons, papers and records. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I feel there are improvements that could be made with respect to the procedures being followed by this committee.

Committees of the House
However, Mr. Speaker, there is one other principle which is raised by this amendment so far as I am concerned. I speak quite bluntly. It is the most important of the principles that are raised. It is important to me because I am a member of a minority group. The chief government whip across the way is looking at me just now and I am looking at him. When this motion gets out of the way he has another one in his pocket which I asked him to move today, substituting other names of C.C.F. members on certain committees. If I were to oppose the request of the government party for certain changes in their personnel, what right would I have to ask the government party to agree to my request for changes in our personnel?
It seems to me that this principle is basic, namely, that every party in this house has the unquestioned right, without interference from the other parties, to decide its personnel on the committees of this house. We claim for the C.C.F. group the right to determine who the C.C.F. members shall be on the committees of this house. If we claim that right so far as this group is concerned, we have to contend for the same right for the Social Crediters, the Progressive Conservatives and also for the Liberals.
Some may argue that there is a difference when you are substituting cabinet ministers for private members. I cannot but agree with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that cabinet ministers, when they sit on the floor of this house, are members of parliament as are the rest of us. Let it be also said that so far as the other groups are concerned we sometimes change backbenchers for frontbenchers, or frontbenchers for backbenchers. Is that not in effect the same thing that has arisen on the government side? Therefore, I submit that if we minority groups in this house claim and assert the right of determining who our own members on this and on other committees shall be, we have to accord that right to the majority party as well.
Despite the many overbearing, dictatorial things that emanate from the other side of the house, I am quite satisfied that they will not retaliate to this amendment today by moving an amendment against the wishes of the Progressive Conservative party, but I do not think we should take advantage of our hope that they will not do that. Thus it seems to me the issue here, the issue that is most important in this motion is whether or not each party group in this house has the right to choose who its members will be on the various committees. If I contend we have that right in this group, I must govern myself accordingly when any other group seeks to exercise that same right.
TMr. Knowles.]


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, when estimates are being considered by the committee of the whole the most important man on the committee is the minister who has the rights of a private member. I understood that the purpose of having estimates considered by a committee was to save time. As I see it now it is a waste of time because when estimates are now sent to a group of members of this house without including the minister, if the minister cannot be a member and witnesses are called, then according to my thinking it is merely disrespect to the ability and interests of the minister.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, although I am not a member of the committee I should like to say a word or two and to revert to one or two things that were said during the debate on the setting up of the committee.
We have heard a constitutional argument made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) which I do not propose to follow, but I do want to go back to stress what was said when this committee was set up.
It was stated that it was to be an experiment. Most of us thought, not that it was to be an attempt to create a small committee of the whole house, as the minister has said, but, as was said at the time, an attempt to follow the practice which we have felt was so successful in the external affairs committee. However well the minister may be able to implement what he said today with books on the constitution, and there I do not propose to meet him, in my opinion his attitude is contrary to the spirit of what we were told when the committee was set up.
We have just heard it said that this committee is proving to be a failure. Apparently the reason it is proving to be a failure is that it is showing some independence. That is the only failure which my hon. friend opposite seems to find in it so far as I can see.
I want to add just one or two other things and to quote a few lines which I quoted when this matter was up before to indicate the experience which they have had in the old country, where they often have useful experiences. Speaking about this business of relegating things from the whole house to a small committee, Right Hon. Walter Elliot had this to say:
I am very jealous of any projects to take discussion away from the floor of the house. I am uneasy about sending too much to select committees of members specializing on particular matters, such as foreign affairs or colonial affairs or, for that matter, domestic affairs.

I suggest that we are running into exactly the kind of danger that he has suggested. I suggest that we are running into it because instead of a spirit of common sense and cooperation to give this thing a chance we have run into a technical desire to assert to the limit the rights of the executive. If that is what the executive wants, with the ranks of supporters they have they can achieve that end. However, I think it was a highly unrealistic picture which the minister gave us of a poor defenceless minister in this committee, where he had no power, where I think he said he was pushed out- metaphorically of course-and it is something that is hard for me to accept considering the large majority of government members on that committee.


An hon. Member:: Like every committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They have the power
which they do not hesitate to exercise and of which the minister could avail himself. Some people may think that what has happened in this committee will not happen in other committees. People may think that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a kind of abandon in his attitude toward these matters which tempts him perhaps to go further than other ministers. But I do not believe that.
I believe that if you put a minister in a committee he is bound to dominate it. He is bound to indicate his views at the outset and if that is done other members of his party will not wish to step forward with their views and then perhaps find that they are entirely contrary to those of the minister. Therefore I say two things. First, that the minister will inevitably dominate the thing from the start, which to my mind is destroying the very basis of the thing. Incidentally if we must refer back to the external affairs committee I am assured that that does not happen there.
Furthermore, is it likely that once the minister has stated his position, as I have no doubt the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would do with a considerable amount of clearness and frankness, other private members on the government side are going to have different views, or at any rate are going to express them? If I am correctly picturing the situation, does it not mean that we have this matter headed to complete failure?
Before I sit down may I say that even with my limited knowledge of constitutional matters I do think that the minister was getting very far from, shall I say his better self, when he undertook to say that this was an attempt to introduce the United States system. We know something about the United States system, and we also know something
Committees of the House about responsible government. Notwithstanding the minister's aspersions, we do know that when it comes to the test, either in the committee or elsewhere, the government has the power and the government will control. So as I take my seat I want to say that we in the opposition are entitled to believe that this experiment would be carried out with loyalty to the experiment, that it will not be strangled in constitutional red tape at the outset. I still hope that the committee may be given a chance.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I find it perhaps somewhat unusual that members of this committee, which I along with many other hon. members feel have done an excellent job, have not yet spoken. It has remained for those who are not members of the committee to tell us how effectively it has or has not worked. Judging from the discussion in the committee it would seem to me that this question of the effectiveness of the committee has arisen because the committee has not been able to call witnesses and send for papers. I contend, as I did in the committee, that the committee on estimates is not a committee on immigration, a committee on northern affairs, on external affairs or on citizenship; it is a committee to deal with estimates.
If the committee is to be given the power to call such witnesses as any hon. member may wish to have before the committee, there is bound to be an attempt by many witnesses to show that they know more about running the department than the particular minister. I suggest that we would then be bogged down in a morass of evidence that would hamper the proceedings of the committee. Then, of necessity, there would have to be six or eight committees sitting to be able to examine even the five departments that have been referred. In committee I also said that I felt that certain members of the opposition were endeavouring to spread a smokescreen in order to cover up their dissatisfaction with the very creditable work that is being done by the committee. In that respect I believe they are having some success. I believe they are getting some assistance from certain sections of the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should address his remarks to the change that is contemplated in the committee. If he carries on criticizing or commenting upon the attitudes of the members of the committee, I am afraid he is getting away from the subject which is to be discussed.

Committees of the House


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has raised this matter as a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; I moved an amendment.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: He feels that the committee is unable to operate effectively because it is unable to send for witnesses. Certainly that is part of his statement. I think it can be said that while in its report the committee was not entirely unanimous, when the report was being decided upon a meeting was held in camera. I have searched the newspapers and have been unable to find any account of this final meeting at which the press were present but did find a report on matters discussed in camera.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has misapprehended what the situation is. In the first place, the hon. member for Kamloops did not raise his point by way of a question of privilege. A motion has been moved before the house suggesting certain changes in the personnel of the committee on estimates. As it was a debatable motion, the hon. member for Kamloops moved an amendment. He spoke to that amendment and he objected to one name being moved because the member whose name had been mentioned was a minister. He gave the reasons why, in his opinion, a member who is a minister should not be a member of the committee. If the hon. member wishes to argue against the reasons that have been given, it is quite in order for him to do so; but he cannot go beyond that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, may I say that members of the official opposition and members of all of the opposition parties expressed the opinion that it was working effectively. With your permission I should like to read what was said in the final meeting when this report was being drafted. I am sure it would be quite in order for me to do so. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre had this to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot give to the hon. member permission to put on the record something which is not in order. I think he will have to wait for another occasion. For instance, if concurrence is moved in the report, then he can argue these things, provided the evidence has been reported. At this moment, however, all we are dealing with is the amendment to the effect that the motion be amended by deleting the words "that the name of Mr. Lesage be substituted for that of Mr. Lafontaine". If the hon. member supports the motion, he is entitled to give his reasons for doing so and, if he is opposed
fMr. Speaker.]
to the motion, he may give his reasons for his opposition. That is what the hon. member must do at this time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am opposed to the amendment on the basis that the committee would not operate as effectively and would not give as much satisfaction to all members in the house if it were to pass. While I am not at liberty to read the minutes of the meeting, I want to say that the three parties expressed the opinion that this committee was doing good work, that they had absolute cooperation from the minister and that they were getting all the information they desired from the officials. I might say that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) said he was pleased with the information they had received and that he was happy that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was no longer pessimistic about the outcome or about the effectiveness of the committee.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in order that my position may be known from the start may I say that I am wholeheartedly in support of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). In listening carefully to what was said by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill), I was rather amazed to listen to the camouflage which he, for a number of minutes, put around the key and the principle involved in the amendment. May I also say -because I always like to be honest-that I was not only amazed but was astounded-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: -at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with regard to his approach to this matter.


Mr. McCann:: Another split!


Harold Edward Winch: He himself was guilty of camouflage.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud that we in the C.C.F. are democratic and can express our opinions. This is, without doubt, a serious question and it must be treated on that basis. Of course, we can all agree with all remarks that have been made by all who have now spoken to the effect that on the floor of this house we are all private members. That is a trite statement and it can be argued that it is a correct one. At the same time, however, we are only kidding ourselves if we do not realize that we live under cabinet government and that the rights of a private member, if he is not a member of the cabinet, on the floor of the House of Commons are greatly limited.

There are only certain things that we can do. One of the major rights of private members outside of the cabinet is their election to and participation in the work of a standing or special committee of the House of Commons. Under this amendment we are discussing the matter of one membership on a special committee of the House of Commons. I know that we can make a nice, easy and sweet story about all members having equal rights. Basically, sir, that matter can be explained away. But let us look at the situation.
Under a term of reference of this House of Commons the matter of estimates has been referred to an estimates committee. That committee is to examine into the expenditures of a department. That situation is as it should be. But, Mr. Speaker, within all your knowledge-if I may put it that way-of Canadian democracy and British democracy, do we believe or have we in the past believed that a department being investigated-and in being investigated, it is being judged-or the man in that department who is the only one responsible to the House of Commons on matters of policy and operation shall not only be investigated and be judged but shall also sit as a judge on himself?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about committee of supply?


Harold Edward Winch: I think that principle is basically wrong, and, quite honestly, I cannot understand why the government, with a majority on the committee, wants to have the man who is the head of the department being judged also be there as a judge. Let us carry the matter a bit further. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) referred to the powers of a minister in committee of the whole on the floor of the House of Commons. He wants the same powers in a committee of the type which in the past has always consisted of private members. May I ask why? I think the answer is quite obvious. If the minister in charge of a department that is being investigated is also a member of the committee, then what does that mean to those who have had experience in this house and the legislatures of Canada? The minister is then in the position of being the party whip on the committee, and if anything a little bit dangerous arises that he does not want answered he can give direction to the members of the committee.


William Gilbert Weir: Would you accept that direction?


Harold Edward Winch: Let us not kid ourselves at all. The minister said that so far as outside witnesses were concerned he would not be 50433-140
Committees of the House in a position to either answer statements or ask questions. Sir, I have only been here for 18 months-


An hon. Member:: That is apparent.


Harold Edward Winch: -but I have sat on committees somewhere else for 20 years and I have never yet seen a case in the House of Commons or any legislature of Canada where, if a standing or special committee called witnesses, the minister or his representative was not given a voice. I have never seen a case where he could not only question witnesses but could also answer them. That is my knowledge of the parliamentary system of Canada. It is quite obvious that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is trying to give members of the house an incorrect understanding of the procedure. He is trying to say that if the minister concerned was not a member of the committee investigating the estimates he would not have the right to ask questions or to reply. That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard made in any parliament in Canada, and he should be ashamed for having said it in the House of Commons. We know that is not our system of democracy. I can only say that he did so because of his inexperience and he should be excused.
Our powers as private members are limited. Surely according to our understanding of Canadian democracy a department or minister whose policies are being judged does not sit in judgment also. I think the answer can be found in the very quotation given by the minister. As found at page 10 of the proceedings of the special committee, the minister said, and I will emphasize certain words in a way they are not emphasized here:
Perhaps I might say one more word on this. The view I have taken on what I should do is to use my own judgment when a question is asked as to whether it is the type of question I should take the responsibility of answering myself or the type of question I should ask one of the officers of the department to answer. I do not intend myself to answer questions . . .
And so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The "I's" have it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, self-confidence is a wonderful thing. For the life of me I cannot understand why my hon. friend is Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and not an optometrist. He knows the "I" so well. The rights of private members are a most important responsibility, and I am certain that on occasion the minister will understand that he or any other minister has nothing to fear if the rights of the minister are queried in the committee or an answer is required.

Committees of the House
In addition, we must recognize, and apparently the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not, that it is not simply a question of the practice in the House of Commons. The question involved here is not that the government might take advantage of what they might think is a precedent when an amendment is moved to a motion to change the name of a member of a committee as suggested by a particular party. That is not the question. This is a matter of a cabinet minister being a member of the committee when he and his department are under investigation. That is an entirely different principle from that outlined by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and that outlined by my own party whip, who I think is the cleverest man in the House of Commons outside of my own leader. I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Kamloops because to me there is a matter of principle involved. It is a question of democracy and the right of private members of the House of Commons to investigate the government and its departments without fear and intimidation by a cabinet minister.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the speech just made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), my remarks will be considerably shorter than they might have been. This is the first time he has made a speech in the house with which I can almost entirely agree. It shows what an amazing place the House of Commons is that this sort of thing can happen from time to time.


Mr. Garson:: You are progressing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: First of all, I should like to comment on what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre.


An hon. Member:: Off centre.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He started out by saying he thought there was considerable confusion as to the principle involved in the motion. I think that is correct, but I also think he added considerably to the confusion by what he said. The hon. member said that as far as he was concerned the main principle was that any particular party should have the right to appoint whom they wanted to the special and standing committees of the House of Commons. I do not think that is the principle involved at all. Certainly it was not the principle intended by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who moved the amendment, and it certainly was not


the principle explained by him. The principle involved here concerns the objection to a minister being a member of the committee on estimates when the estimates of his department are being considered or investigated by that committee. Quite simply that, I think, is the matter we have under discussion and the matter upon which we should vote when it comes time to vote.
The red herring, and I can only call it that, which was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) really has nothing to do with this motion. It was not intended to enter into this matter, and the whole purpose of the motion, as was clearly explained by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), is to voice in the only way we can voice it, our objection to this principle of ministers being members of the committee which is investigating their departments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed at the attitude of the government as expressed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) in regard to this whole question of a committee on estimates. The minister said he thought it was within the power of this house to give the committee power to call witnesses if it wished to do so. I do not think there is any question of its being within the power of the house. As a matter of fact, every other committee of which I have been a member during the last ten years, and they have been numerous, has had the power to call witnesses. On one occasion I moved that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) be called as a witness.


Mr. Sluari (Charlotte):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; this matter of calling witnesses and calling for records has been brought up this afternoon on several occasions. In my opinion, it is a matter that was dealt with on the floor of this house and voted upon, and I believe it is very much out of order to bring it up in this discussion today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) is now bringing it up, I understand, as a matter of commenting upon the remarks which were made on the subject by the minister and also by the mover of the amendment. He is not going to discuss, I hope, whether the committee should have the power to call witnesses. The whole argument made this afternoon is to the effect that the minister should not be a member of the committee, but that he could be called as a witness. It is with that aspect of the argument I believe the hon. member is dealing at the moment. If he goes any

farther than that, he will not be in order. At the moment, I think he is in order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I was saying, every committee of which I have been a member has had the power to call witnesses, and so far as I know has had the power to call any witness it wished to call. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said he did not know whether it was within the power of the committee to call a member of this house or a minister as a witness. Actually it has been done on several occasions. As a matter of fact, the late-


William Gilbert Weir: They do not have to go.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -the late R. B. Bennett was called to appear before a committee. On one occasion the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was called. He raised considerable fuss about it, and the matter was finally resolved I think by making him a member of the committee, as I-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Precisely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -recall the thing.


Mr. Gardiner:: I was there; I was not called.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think, when the minister says he was not called, that he is thinking of a different committee. I am thinking of the committee on prices which sat in 1946 and 1947, I believe it was. It was before that committee that a motion was made that the minister appear.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think it was passed, though.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, it was passed, as a matter of fact, and it was then that the minister raised a complaint. In any event, I do not think there is any question but that all committees of this house up to this one have had the power to call witnesses.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No, no; that is not right at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I fail to see why this particular committee should be put in a different position from any of the others from that point of view.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member has slipped at this point. As long as he makes the argument that the minister, if he were not a member of the committee, could be called as a witness he is I believe in order. But the minute he begins criticizing the fact that this committee has no power to send for witnesses, papers, or records, he is going beyond the bounds of the rules.
50433-140J
Committees of the House


Douglas Scott Harkness: I never disagree with Your Honour's ruling, but rather than slipping I thought I was just getting into the meat of the matter. However, I shall leave that phase of it.
In the course of his remarks this afternoon, the minister stated, "We bring before this committee on estimates officers in whom we have confidence." Those are the only ones they bring. What does that statement mean? It means simply this, that the only evidence the government or the minister whose estimates are before the committee is going to permit before that committee is that of the person whom he wants, and who he thinks will not do him any harm, or who will not disclose anything that he does not want to have disclosed. That is what it means. What a mockery to make of a committee! We have been informed that is the way it is going to be conducted. The minister said, we bring officers here, and that is all we are going to bring, in whom we have confidence. We are not going to bring anybody else. We are not going to bring anybody from outside unless we have confidence in him. We will not have anybody in front of this committee unless we are certain that what he is saying will not embarrass us; that he will not give any information we do not want given. This makes a complete mockery of the committee. We might just as well not have it if that practice is going to be followed by all the ministers whose estimates are before that committee. If the committee is going to be conducted primarily from that point of view, a point of view which I would hope would not be shared by other ministers whose estimates are going to be before the committee, then the sooner we wash it up and cease wasting time, the better.
I have one final remark to make, and reference has been made to this before, and that is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has not been a member of the committee on external affairs which considers his estimates. The fact that that committee has operated so successfully for some years with the minister appearing there as a witness is a complete refutation of the whole argument advanced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I do not think you need any other refutation than the simple fact that the committee on external affairs has existed for several years and it has operated in the past in the way in which we say this committee on estimates should operate, with the minister as a witness and not as a member.
I say we should follow this precedent which we already have of not having the minister

Committees of the House as a member of a committee investigating his estimates, and we should proceed from that point.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to say one or two words on this subject. It seems to me there has been a good deal of confusion in the house this afternoon. As a matter of fact, what is this committee? The house set up a committee of supply which decided that the business of the house would be expedited if a subcommittee of that committee of supply were established, and that is what we did. In committee of supply the minister would sit with all other members of the house. Now, since we have substituted a subcommittee for that committee of supply, I take it the minister will sit as a member of the subcommittee if he so desires. I can see no reason in the world why we should have a long debate on this matter. This is not the legislature of the United States. The executive is not separated from the membership of this house. All we have done is to decide we would facilitate the business of discussing the estimates by setting up a special committee which would do the work of the committee of supply. It seems to me that subcommittee has been set up in the same way. I shall oppose, therefore, the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I have been weighing the arguments on both sides of this question most carefully, Mr. Speaker. The question which seems to be most important in my mind was whether or not the committee was investigating a department or was examining into the estimates of a department. I thought right from the beginning that we were setting up this committee to examine the estimates; certainly there was no thought in my mind that we were going to investigate a department. And, that being so, I see no argument at all against the Liberal party's appointing anyone they wish to that committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They could appoint the whole cabinet, if they are foolish enough to do so.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. Of course, I think the government is actually weakening its own position by having a minister appointed to the committee. If the minister were actually sitting in the committee, with a watchful eye over the whole proceedings, as is often done in the committee on external affairs, perhaps he might give strength, not to an investigation of a department but to the examination of the estimates. But certainly that is their right, if they wish to use it.
[Mr. Harkness.l

So far as I am concerned I must say that while I believe they might strengthen their position by having the minister in a different position from any member of the committee, yet I must uphold their right to appoint whomever they wish to the committee. Therefore I shall vote against the amendment.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word, as a member of the estimates committee. On this occasion I am going to support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the views he has expressed. I feel, in common with others who have spoken, that the Liberal party, like any other party, is entitled to put on the committee any representative they wish. If they wish to put on one cabinet minister- or three or five or ten.

that is their right.
At the same time I hope they will not exercise that right because, as was pointed out a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), we are going to be in the position of having the minister before the estimates committee primarily as a witness. He is a witness who will be there to justify his department's expenditures, to give evidence and answer questions. Yet, at the same time, if this resolution is passed he will be a member of the investigating body. I do not think this is a sound principle.
There is only one other thing I would like to say. I was a little surprised by the attitude of some members of the Conservative party this afternoon. I think it was the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness) who suggested that, under certain circumstances, the committee should be washed out. I am sure he did not mean that; because the Conservative party, like other opposition parties, has been asking for this committee for a good many years. Now that we have got it, we want to keep it.
I,	personally, think this committee has been of great value. It is quite true that perhaps the minister did not answer all the questions the way we would have liked him to answer. Nevertheless I found him frank, and I found his officials most co-operative. I think for the first time this parliament has had the opportunity to examine estimates in detail, as they should be examined, and I hope we will continue the experiment.
I think if all hon. members would stick to the estimates, and not move repetitious motions in the committee, we would get down to business in a more efficient manner.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member not to refer to the work of the committee,

unless such reference is strictly relevant to the subject matter of the amendment.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have only one suggestion to make, and I have made it in the past: I think the estimates committee would be stronger if the government would give to opposition parties certain civil servants to help analyse figures, do research and the like.


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


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the central point, which has been ignored in the argument made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), is that, contrary to the practice where similar committees are appointed at Westminster, the proposition has been laid down that it will be the minister who decides what goes before the committee. Since that power is going to be exercised, then the minister, in relationship to that committee, is in a very different position from that of a minister before a committee appointed at Westminster, where invariably powers to call witnesses and to produce papers, and other powers, are conferred.
In this case the minister has raised certain points that do carry this matter beyond a mere argument as to technicalities. The minister himself has stated, in presenting his argument, that the ideas being expressed here are pretty subversive of responsible government. Now, one can only assume that this in itself is to be taken as a serious statement by the minister. If that is so, then it would be interesting to have a reconciliation between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Obviously the Secretary of State for External Affairs is subversive, because he has actually placed before the house the proposition, which has been acceded to for many years, that a committee should be set up, with full powers; and at no time has he sought to be a member of that committee.


An hon. Member:: Because there is no need.


Mr. Harris:: It is a standing committee.


George Alexander Drew: The only inference I can take from the remark of the hon. member who says "Because there is no need" is that the hon. member is suggesting that, in the case of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, there is nothing to cover up. That would be the only reasonable explanation.
I am not saying of course that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is subversive. On the contrary I think he has laid down an
Committees of the House admirable method which might well be followed by other departments; and we have made that argument over and over again. We have asked that a procedure similar to that followed by the Department of External Affairs should be followed by other departments.
In this case the attitude seems to be-in fact it has been so expressed-that it is something in the nature of an impertinence to question the statement of the minister that this is not the best course to be followed. The hon. member who quoted from Hansard did indicate the fact that the minister has fairly consistent views, and, as the recorded speech indicates, they are his personal views. I could not help thinking that perhaps in this case we might turn, as we have in other cases, to Mr. Lewis Carroll. Perhaps hon. members will recall these words:
"When I use a word," Humpty-Dumpty said, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Humpty-Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
That was Mr. Lewis Carroll in "Through the Looking-Glass". And Mr. Lewis Carroll has had a number of comments to make which have strange applications to some of the views that are expressed.
When the minister says that the arguments presented here are arguments which indicate a desire to follow the system in the United States, then he brings into debate the question as to whether or not it is wise to call witnesses. Because that is what he was referring to.


An hon. Member:: No.


George Alexander Drew: And in that argument it is worth while to recall that they have the power to call witnesses and to produce papers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition did not wish to misrepresent what I said. I was not referring to the right to call witnesses at all. I take no exception whatsoever to that, if it is the wish of the house to give that power. I was referring to the suggestion that the minister be excluded from the committee, and that there should be a division of powers between the executive and the legislature. That is what I was referring to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That suggestion was never made.


George Alexander Drew: That would not be the ground for any such assertion. If the minister is putting it on that ground, then I must confess it seems to me to be a very strange argument indeed. The committees in the United States have wide exploratory powers that we

Committees of the House have not in this house, from either side, suggested should be conferred. But since the minister has again referred to this point, then it should be recalled that already there has been evidence of the fact that the minister does wish to retain fairly effective control over what is done, because he has told us just this afternoon that any question which he has the right to answer he wants to retain the right to answer exclusively. He nods his head in assent. That is a very interesting doctrine. This means that if the minister, who is an elected representative, decides that he wants to answer it, then he excludes answers from the officials who can give the facts in regard to which he himself says he is not informed.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He does not even trust the officials.


George Alexander Drew: In that case he denies to the committee, simply by the exercise of his power and his right, the opportunity to hear the kind of evidence that is placed before the committee which inquires into the accounts of the Department of External Affairs.
I must confess that one of the strangest arguments presented here this afternoon is the argument which came from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I certainly have always admired the manner in which, with great industry and great vigour, he devotes his attention to procedure and to rules, and also asserts from time to time vigorous demands for the freedom of hon. members, and particularly minority members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the reason I was
fighting for your party today.


George Alexander Drew: What the hon. member said today-and he used the word-was that we must be careful about retaliation. Surely, we have gone a long way in denying the ordinary procedure, and a long way in denying responsible government, and that means government responsible to parliament, if the argument to which we should submit is that if we present arguments which are sound, but which might deny to the government any right it claims, then we may be subject to retaliation. That indeed would be the strongest argument that has yet been made for every hon. member to oppose the proposition that a minister go on the committee so that he can say what should be done, and then having said it, accept some measure of silence because of the danger of retaliation. Indeed we can well repeat: "The question is, said Humpty-Dumpty, which is to be master? That's all." The hon member for Winnipeg
.
North Centre seems to agree that it would be wise for us to submit and just go as far as we can quietly, unobtrusively, without giving offence to the government, and particularly without giving offence to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and be sure that nothing we do causes that measure of retaliation which might deny to us rights which are laid down by the rules of this house, which it is the duty of the Speaker to enforce, and which we all agree the Speaker seeks to enforce from day to day with the utmost impartiality.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question? Is
there any doubt as to what would be the result from the votes of the overbearing majority on the other side if they made a motion against the wishes of the Progressive Conservative party?


George Alexander Drew: I have no doubt, and it is because I have no doubt that I intend to fight on all occasions in this house for the right of the private members to assert their case. The moment that hon. members say that, because they believe hon. members on the other side are going to vote consistently in support of the government, we must be quiet, unobtrusive and not too vigorous, the Prime Minister might just as well take the exact quotation from Cromwell and say: "I think it is useless for us to remain any longer here, and that the state will best be served if you all go home." No, we have not reached that point yet. The real issue before us today is whether or not we do retain a certain measure of opportunity to examine carefully the estimates that are placed before us in a manner that is not possible in the general discussion in committee of supply.
I wish to say a few words with regard to the argument that has been made that this committee is only a minor transcript of the committee of supply.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Sure.


George Alexander Drew: I hear "sure" from the other side. If that is so, then what advantage is gained by having such a committee? The committee set up to examine the accounts of the Department of External Affairs is not just a transcript of the committee of supply.


Walter Edward Harris: No, it is a standing committee.


George Alexander Drew: It is a committee which has been given the opportunity year after year to obtain information in regard to the activities of that department. Whether there be agreement on all details or not, general agreement has been expressed in regard to the method. In arguing for the extension of committees

of this kind, my own argument has been always devoted to urging an extension of that method. Whether it be a standing committee or a committee set up as an experiment in this case, and obviously a very truncated experiment from the experience already offered to hon. members, the purpose should be to give to hon. members an opportunity to find out what the facts are, not something subversive of responsible government, but something that gives reality to the responsibility of government in a house which has shown a tendency to display very little independence of thought when it comes to hon. members on the other side.
There is just one other word I should like to put forward, since the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-my tongue almost slipped; I almost called him the minister of censorship and immigration, in view of certain reports in the press today-saw fit to place on record the statement that the Conservative party of 100 years ago accepted responsible government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did they not?


George Alexander Drew: Since the minister has seen fit to introduce this, perhaps it might be well to deal with this Liberal myth and to remind him that it was a Conservative government that gave to Canada its charter, its constitution, and which set up federal government and constitutional government in Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I shall detain the house a couple of minutes. I support the point of view taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. One point has been overlooked, namely, that in this estimates committee the departments are not being charged with an offence and are not being investigated in that sense. It is simply a question of members of the House of Commons on that committee seeking explanations and reasons for certain proposed expenditures, and while seeking those explanations and reasons inquiring into certain procedures of the department so that they may better understand the reason for the expenditures and the way the money was expended. I heard the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) use the word "emanations". I think the minister used it also. Am I correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Am I correct in saying that the minister used the word "emanations" in the sense that, scientifically speaking, emanations can proceed only from an object capable of giving off light?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perfectly correct.
Committees of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the main motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.
Legislation
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Thatcher
Thomas
Tucker
Valois
Viau
Villeneuve
Weaver
Weir
Weselak
White (Waterloo South)
Winters
Wylie
Yuill
Zaplitny-130.



VETERANS BENEFIT ACT


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 278, to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, sections 8 and 12 of the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954, make available to certain ex-service personnel the benefits of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act respectively. It is considered that the benefits of these two acts are not appropriate to service in the regular peacetime forces. The purpose of this bill is to ensure their continuance only to those persons who join the regular forces before July 1, 1955.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOREIGN AIRCRAFT


Walter Edward Harris: the first reading of Bill No. 263 (from the Senate), to implement the convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Hardie:: 1.	What was the total amount paid to residents of the Northwest Territories by the Department of National Health and Welfare in each of the years 1952, 1953 and 1954, for (a) old age security pensions; (b) old age assistance allowances?
2.	What was the total amount paid to residents of the Northwest Territories by the Department of National Health and Welfare for family allowances, in each of the years 1946 to 1954 inclusive?


Mr. Roberlson:: 1.	(a) As one account only is maintained by the Department of Finance for old age security payments in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, the following figures cover both areas: 1952-53, $217,720; 1953-54, $225,520; 1954-55, $223,685 (to February 28).
(b) 1952-53, $4,257.50; 1953-54, $14,251.00; 1954-55, $17,189.10 (to February 28).
2.	As one account only is maintained by the Department of Finance for family allowances payments in the Northwest Territories
and the Yukon the following figures cover
both areas:	1946-47,
$574,470.00;	1948-49,
$587,749.50;	1950-51,
$649,273.15;	1952-53,
$702,801.00;	1954-55,
ruary 28).
$471,376.50;	1947-48,
$595,063.00;	1949-50,
$625,348.67;	1951-52,
$680,828.30;	1953-54,
$678,108.63 (to Feb-


PHYSICAL FITNESS ACT
Mr. Purdy:: 1.	When did the physical fitness act come into force?
2.	When did operations under this act cease?
3.	What amount would have been available to each of the provinces, during each of the years of the operation of this act had they taken full advantage of same?
4.	What amount was paid to each province each year during the operation of the act?


Mr. Roberlson:: 1.	The national physical fitness act was assented to on July 24, 1943, and proclaimed October 1, 1943.
2.	The national physical fitness act was repealed on June 15, 1954. However, since British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Northwest Territories had agreements which did not expire until March 31, 1955, under the terms of the national physical fitness act these agreements are being continued until their expiry date.



AMOUNTS AVAILABLE TO PROVINCES UNDER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL FITNESS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Province	1943^4	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55$ cts.	$ cts.	$ ots.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.P.E.I	... 1,86100	1,861 00	1,861 00	1,861 00	1,861 00	1,858 50	1,858 50	1,858 50	1,858 50	1,630 00	1,630 00	1,630 00N.S	... 11,317 75	11,317 75	11,317 75	11,317 75	11,317 75	11,301 75	11,301 75	11,301 75	11,301 75	10,641 25	10,641 25	10,641 25N.B	... 8,95750	8,957 50	8,957 50	8,957 50	8,957 50	8,943 75	8,943 75	8,943 75	8,943 75	8,540 00	8,540 00	8,540 00Que	... 65,248 00	65,248 00	65,248 00	65,248 00	65,248 00	65,151 00	65,151 00	65,151 00	65,151 00	67,163 25	67,163 25	67,163 25Ont	... 74,173 75	74,173 75	74,173 75	74,173 75	74,173 75	74,063 25	74,063 25	74,063 25	74,063 25	76,136 50	76,136 50	76,136 50Man	...' 14,290 00	14,290 00	14,290 00	14,290 00	14,290 00	14,269 50	14,269 50	14,269 50	14,269 50	12,859 75	12,859 75	12,859 75Sask	... 17,545 75	17,545 75	17,545 75	17,545 75	17,545 75	17,520 75	17,520 75	17,520 75	17,520 75	13,773 50	13,773 50	13,773 50Alta	... 15,590 50	15,590 50	15,590 50	15,590 50	15,590 50	15,567 75	15,567 75	15,567 75	15,567 75	15,558 50	15,558 50	15,558 50B.C	... 16,015 75	16,015 75	16,015 75	16,015 75	16,015 75	15,993 00	15,993 00	15,993 00	15,993 00	19,296 25	19,296 25	19,296 25N.W.T	-	-	-	-	234 00	234 00	234 00	234 00	234 00	265 00	265 00	265 00Yukon	-	-	-	-	96 75	96 75	96 75	96 75	96 75	150 75	150 75	150 75Nfld	-	-	-	-	-	-	7,000 00	7,000 00	7,000 00	5,985 25	5,985 25	5,985 25Total	...225,000 00	225,000 00	225,000 00	225,000 00	225,330 75	225,000 00	232,000 00	232,000 00	232,000 00	232,000 00	232,000 00	232,000 00^OTES___	,(a)	Initially, the sum of $225,000.00 was prorated on a per capita basis for nine provinces (i). Later the amounts were recalculated on the basis of nine provinces and two territories (ii). When Newfoundland entered confederation, an additional $7,000.00 was made available for that province (111). In 1952, recalculations were based on the 1951 census and $232,000.00.(i)	1943 to March 31, 1948 (based on 1941 census).(ii)	December 1947 to March 31, 1952 (based on 1941 census).(iii)	$7,000.00 for Newfoundland not included in pro rata funds.(iv)	April 1, 1952 to March 31, 1955 (based on 1951 census).(b)	As agreements were renewed, the periods of agreement were changed to coincide with the fiscal year.	.	, ,	.(c)	Re: 1947-48-While the grants were recalculated during this fiscal year to make provision for the N.W.T. and the Y ukon, the sums allotted to the provinces under the first calculation were listed in the agreements and thus had to be made available for 1947-48. Phis adjustment, therefore, would have involved an expenditure of $225,330.75 in 1947-48 if all provinces had utilized the full amount available to them.
Questions

4.

[Stage Direction]
Province
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia....
Northwest Territories
Yukon	
Newfoundland	
Totals	
Payments of Grants according to fiscal year (a)
1944-45	194546	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. $ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	8 cts. ©774 49* * - 1,861 00 - 2,409 40*	2,323 75* 1,861 00	1,858 50	1,858 50	1,858 50	-	-	Hi 	
CO «**[DOT] o7,418 43	6,747 50	10,077 08 8,685 40	14,001 98	11,426 92	10,415 36	9,260 69	10,940 57	10,641 25	10,641 25-	- 2,186 86	6,280 65	8,943 75	6,771 84	8,412 43	8,540 00	8,540 00	4,530 37-	-	- -	-	-	74,063 25*	74,063 25*	74,063 25*	76,136 50*	76,136 50*-	2,692 44*	7,484 92* 7,933 66* 17,545 75*	5,997 84*	7,237 93*	8,250 97*	9,573 45*	13,125 96*	12,859 75*	12,859 75*-	17,044 65* 15,088 76*	17,545 75* 17,545 75	17,520 75	17,520 75	17,520 75	17,520 75	13,773 50	13,773 50	3,443 38*-	7,981 77	15,515 61 19,488 12 16,015 75*	14,671 79	16,463 71	15,567 75	15,567 75	15,558 50	15,558 50	15,558 5016,015 75	-	16,015 75 16,015 75	15,993 00	15,993 00	15,993 00	15,993 00	19,296 25	19,296 25 265 00*	--	-	- 234 00	234 00	234 00	234 00	-	234 00*	265 00	-23,434 18	49,555 12	87,699 75 89,635 29	78,884 76	79,678 56	150,675 42	152,249 71	155,532 03	157,335 75	123,169 75
Notes-
(a)	Payments made in any one fiscal year may include payments in respect of previous years.
(b)	^an^twe^^mfmtS^some 'ca^es36"0^8 °f agreement Were chan®ed t0 coincide with the fiscal year. This necessitated making agreements for periods other
(c)	Payments for 1954-55 are in process.
* Payment for claim of previous fiscal year.
2214	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Mr. Buchanan:: 1.	What money grants, if any, were paid to the
following hospitals in Cape Breton, for the last four years:	(a) Harbourview hospital, Sydney
Mines; (b) St. Elizabeth, North Sydney; (c) Cape Breton hospital; (d) Point Edward t.b. hospital?
2.	In addition to money grants, what equipment was supplied to the above hospitals by the federal government, during the same period?


Mr. Roberison:: 1.	Under the national health grants program the following grants were made during 1951-1955:
(a)	Harbourview h o s p i t a 1,
Sydney Mines	$	56,427.56(b) St.	Elizabeth	hospital,North Sydney	
195,094.23(c) Cape Breton	hospital,Sydney River	
382,500.00(d)	Point Edward tuberculosishospital, Sydney	
391,926.74Total	$ 1,025,948.532. Of the above grants the	following
amounts were paid largely for the purchase of equipment:
Harbourview hospital, Sydney Mines-for admission chest
X-ray equipment	$	6,760.90
St. Elizabeth hospital, North Sydney-for admission chest
X-ray equipment.... 6,760.90
Point Edward tuberculosis hospital, Sydney-for the purchase of equipment and supplies (dental, rehabilitation, laboratory, radiological) and the employment of staff	 391,926.74



BRITISH COMMONWEALTH


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Was the Canadian government consulted concerning the possible extension of an invitation to the prime minister of the Gold Coast to attend the recent commonwealth conference in London?
2.	If so, did the Canadian government express an opinion on the question, and, if so, what was the opinion?
3.	Has the Canadian government been consulted concerning the admission of the Gold Coast to full membership in the commonwealth?
4.	If so, has the Canadian government expressed an opinion on the question, and, if so, what was the opinion?
5.	Can states be admitted to full membership of the commonwealth without the approval of the Canadian government?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	So far as is known, the question of extending such an invitation was not raised
Questions
by any member of the commonwealth. No question of consultation, therefore, arose.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No. The question of the admission of the Gold Coast to full membership in the commonwealth would not arise until the Gold Coast attained full self-government.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Admission to full membership of the commonwealth is a question which is a matter for consideration by all members. In view of their sovereign and equal status it would be expected that each would have an opportunity of expressing its views on the matter before any decision was taken.



EXPORTS, U.S. AND CANADIAN SEAPORTS

Mr. Brooks:: 1. What was the amount (a) in tons; (b) in value of goods manufactured or produced in Canada exported through Canadian seaports and United States seaports, respectively, for each month from January 1, 1954 to February 1, 1955?
2.	What was the amount (a) in tons; (b) in value of goods imported for use in Canada through Canadian and United States seaports, respectively, for each month from January 1, 1954 to February 1, 1955?


Mr. Dickey:: 1. Records of Canadian exports through Canadian seaports and United States seaports are not maintained on a monthly basis but are compiled annually only. The compilation of this information for the calendar year 1954 will not be completed until about April 15, 1955. Tonnage figures are not available.
2 (a) Amount in tons is not recorded, (b) The value of goods imported into Canada through Canadian seaports and United States seaports is as follows:-
	Through	Consigned to
Month	Canadian	Canada
	Seaports	through the United States *
January 1954 .	$55,865,685	$18,319,561February 	54,749,696	16,972,959March 	60,314,975	19,439,510April 	71,110,542	19,182,868May 	79,989,454	16,949,841June 	98,454,564	17,710,931July 	83,010,286	15,198,488August 	80,573,909	13,007,166September ...	80,599,778	14,324,453October 	81,506,387	13,794,355November ....	80,462,697	15,245,655December ....	71,981,752	18,907,357January 1955	Not yet available	
* Included imports of crude petroleum by pipeline.

Questions
IMPORTS OF CANNED FRUITS Mr. Tustin:
What were the total Imports into Canada for the year 1954, showing country of origin, volume and value of (a) canned peaches; (b) canned pears; (c) canned fruit salad; (d) other canned fruits?


John Horace Dickey: (a) Canned peaches:
Country	Lb.	ValueUnited Kingdom ....	1,600	$ 236Australia 	757,335	105,268United States 	11,380,886	1,273,477Totals	12,139,821	$1,378,981(b) Canned pears:	Country	Lb.	ValueAustralia 	435,948	62,127United States 	2,018,093	304,455Totals	2,454,041	$ 366,582(c) Canned fruit salad:	Country	Lb.	ValueUnited Kingdom ....	9,970	1,890Hong Kong 	494	117Australia 	236,867	38,839United States 	28,903,172	3,960,621Totals	29,150,503	$4,001,467(d) Other canned fruit:	Country	Lb.	ValueUnited Kingdom ....	436,796	48,023Union of South Africa	128,710	21,359India 	252	73Hong Kong 	9,383	3,183Australia 	4,832,030	678,088Malaya and Singapore	265,250	38,252Fiji 	131,580	18,612Belgium 	79,343	16,264Cuba 	326,703	33,624Denmark 	840	231Japan 	682,674	86,781Mexico 	8,650,182	913,574Netherlands 	1,029,957	143,318Sweden 	13,472	3,188Taiwan 	1,598	195Hawaii 	28,389,615	3,738,680United States 	8,206,132	990,331Totals	53,184,517	$6,733,776



BRITISH COMMONWEALTH-ADMISSION OF CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Did the prime minister of the central African federation attend the recent commonwealth conference in London?
2.	Did he participate as a full member of the conference?

3.	Was the Canadian government consulted concerning the invitation extended to the prime minister of the central African federation? If so, when, and did the Canadian government approve this invitation?
4.	Has the Canadian government been consulted concerning the admission of the central African federation to full membership in the commonwealth?
5.	If so, has the Canadian government approved the admission of the central African federation to full membership in the commonwealth, and, if so, when?
6.	Is the central African federation a full member of the commonwealth? If so, when did it become a full member?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1 and 2. The Prime Minister of the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland attended the 1955 meetings of the commonwealth prime ministers, in the same way that he has attended previous meetings. He did not participate, however, in all the discussions.
3.	The Canadian government was notified before the conference of the intention to invite the Prime Minister of the federation to attend as on previous occasions and raised no objection.
4. No. The question of the admission of the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to full membership in the commonwealth will not arise until the federation attains full selfgovernment.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	No.



UNIVERSITY GRANTS BY PROVINCES

Mr. Hardie:: Under the Massey grant recommendations, what payment was made per university student for each province in (a) 1953-54; (b) 1954-55?


Mr. Benidickson:: It is presumed that this question refers to grants made to universities under authority of vote 121 of the Appropriation Act, 1953 and 119 of the Appropriation Act, 1954.
Grants are not made on a per student basis. The grants amount to 50 cents per head of population in each province and are divided among the approved institutions in each province in proportion to their respective student enrolments.



SUGAR IMPORTS

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What amount of (a) raw sugar; (b) refined sugar, was imported into Canada from the Dominican Republic, during the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?
2.	In each case, what was the Canadian port of entry?

3.	What amount of raw sugar was imported into Canada from Cuba, during the years 1950, 1951 1952, 1953 and 1954?
4.	In each case, what was the Canadian port of entry?


John Horace Dickey: Imports by customs ports are not available, but imports by province of entry is shown.
1 (a) and (b*), and 2. From Dominican Republic.
Raw sugar
Year	Province	Cwt.1950	British Columbia . . .	94,0801951	New Brunswick ....	11,200Quebec	
67,201Total	
78,4011952	New Brunswick	608,049Quebec	
356,182British Columbia____	258,666Total	
1,222,8971953	New Brunswick	
384,367Quebec	
712,658British Columbia____	193,207Total	
1,290,232
*No imports.
1954	_
3 and 4. From Cuba.
Raw sugar
Year	Province	Cwt.1950	British Columbia____	89,3061951	Quebec	
463,681British Columbia____	20,558Total	
484,2391952	New Brunswick	981,701Quebec	
1,340,108British Columbia ....	316,468Total	
2,638,2771953	New Brunswick	460,773Quebec	
753,940British Columbia	....	216,663Total	
1,431,3761954	New Brunswick	
569,919Quebec	
1,025,775Total	
1,595,694
Motions for Papers



CIVIL SERVANTS RETIRED

Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	Under order in council P.C. 1954-673 and public service superannuation regulations thereunder, how many civil servants have been retired?
2.	What were the respective positions held by each of such civil servants?
3.	What were the years of service and the age at retirement of each of them?
4.	In what branch of government did each of them serve?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. member and I think he desires to reword this question. He has therefore requested that it be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Bryson:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were shipped through the port of Churchill, in each year since January 1, 1944?
2.	What grades of wheat were shipped from this port in 1954, and how many bushels of each grade?
3.	What grades of wheat are presently stored at Churchill, and how many bushels of each grade?
4.	What has been the selling price of No. 2 northern wheat, in each year since January 1, 1944, at Churchill?
5.	What has been the selling price of No. 2 northern wheat, in each year since January 1, 1844, at Fort William and at Montreal?
6.	What are the shipping costs per bushel of wheat from Churchill to Liverpool and from Montreal to Liverpool?
7.	What are the Hull insurance rates on cargoes of grain to the United Kingdom from Churchill and from Montreal?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.



BRIDGES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the government given any assistance by way of grant or contribution to any province or municipality for the construction of bridges not located on the trans-Canada highway, since January, 1949?
2.	If so, in what cases, and what was the amount of the grant or contribution in each case?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Dinsdale:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other communications in the possession of the Department of Defence Production, relating to the operation of the small defence industries branch of the Department of Defence Production and its discontinuation in 1954.
He said:	The parliamentary assistant
to the minister has been in touch with me on this matter, and I am withdrawing the motion for redrafting.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.

Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all communications from or on behalf of organizations dated at any time since July 1, 1954, received by the government, or any minister thereof, respecting the unemployment situation in Canada, and for a copy of the replies thereto.


Mr. Gregg:: I have spoken to the hon. member and he has agreed that this motion might be presented to the house with the following amendments: In the first line the word "all" to be replaced by the word "representative", and in the third line the words "government or any minister thereof" to be replaced by "Minister of Labour". With these changes, I have no objection to the motion.



TELEVISION STATION, JONQUTERE, QUE.

Mr. Girard:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, memoranda and other communications in the possession of the Department of Transport, relating to the application for a television station at Jonquiere.
(Translation) :


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport being absent today, I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard) to kindly allow his notice of motion to stand.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house any information as to the extent and causes of the losses which have been reported as occurring in No. 11 works company of the Royal Canadian Engineers, Vancouver?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minisfer of National Defence):: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The investigation which is now proceeding at No.
11 works company, Royal Canadian Engineers, Vancouver, was initiated by the commanding officer when, in the course of a routine check of stores, certain shortages in stock were disclosed. In the course of the ensuing investigation ordered by him certain allegations were made against a former senior N.C.O. of the unit. When this former N.C.O. was questioned regarding these irregularities he made a number of further allegations.
Several of these further allegations dealt with matters alleged to have occurred in

1945 and 1946, which in previous years had been investigated. The remaining matters have almost entirely to do with trafficking in hand tools, which appears to have taken place from time to time at the unit. As this trafficking has appeared to involve civilian as well as military personnel, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been called in and they are in the process of conducting a very thorough investigation, in the course of which a considerable number of people have been interrogated. Until the R.C.M.P. investigation has been completed and appropriate charges laid it would not, I think, be desirable or proper that I should say more. From such information as I have been able to glean, I would hope that the investigation will be completed in the next few weeks.


George Randolph Pearkes: Was the routine investigation to which the minister has referred based on the recommendations for an approved audit system which were made by Mr. George Currie after a similar investigation had been carried out at Petawawa?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It resulted from the type of check which was set up following the submission of the Currie report. The figures that came to the commanding officer's attention seemed to him out of line, and he ordered a further investigation.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister if there will be a most thorough investigation, and will the report of the investigation be made available to the house?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think it is customary to make available to the house reports of investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or by the provost corps, who are also engaged in this matter. As to the other point,
I can assure the hon. member that the investigation will be complete. It is being thoroughly done, and I am sure it will be completed in the same way.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the minister not feel that reports should be made available to the house of investigations that concern the expenditure of public funds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Later: 1



DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SYSTEM OF PROCESSING YARNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Can
the Minister of National Defence inform the house as to when we can expect an answer to the question I asked over a week ago, concerning a new process for making textiles?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have been waiting for some minutes for an opportunity to give the answer. The question to which the hon. member refers is one he asked me on March 14, or a series of questions, concerning a report to the effect that development engineers in the department have discovered a new system of making yarn. I might say that I had intended in due course to make a short general statement to the house on this important development, so perhaps I might do so now. The hon. member will find that in the course of my remarks all his questions will be answered.
The Department of National Defence has been searching for some time for ways and means to develop more economic and efficient types of clothing to meet the requirements of the services. For several years now the special projects branch of the directorate of interservice development, under the direction of Colonel H. L. Delcellier, has been investigating this problem. The actual work has been conducted by Dr. J. V. Weinberger of the special projects branch. These efforts have now produced a very worth-while advance in the technique of spinning yam.
The great advantage of this new process is that, for the first time, cloth can be produced which combines effectively the great tensile strength of synthetic fibres together with all the best qualities of natural fibres. Any textile fibre can be combined with synthetic fibre to produce cloth by this method, and textile machinery presently in use can easily be adapted to employ the new technique. Obviously such an advance is one of importance to the whole textile industry.
For the armed forces this development holds great promise. Cloth produced by this new technique will mean both lighter and stronger clothing, clothing which is much less likely to tear. Materials produced by this new technique are not limited to those used for clothing but can also be applied to the manufacture of canvas, upholstery coverings and other heavy types of cloth.
Thus far only small quantities of different types of cloth woven by this technique have been produced for military use by several mills in Canada. We are now definitely past the experimental stage with some types of cloth, while experiments still remain to be completed with other types.
The armed services of both the United Kingdom and the United States are, very naturally, interested in this development. Indeed, some of the new cloths are presently being given rigorous tests in the United States. United Kingdom military authorities also
Inquiries of the Ministry have asked for considerable yardage of certain types of cloth for testing purposes. Patent applications covering the new process have been filed in Canada, United States and Europe.
In accordance with the normal practice patents have been filed in the names of the inventors but, by the terms of their employment, the invention is vested in Her Majesty. The patents will be issued to Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National Defence. All royalties will accrue to the crown.
Despite the fact that the inventors did their work as servants of the crown, it is anticipated that they will be rewarded to the extent of receiving a portion of whatever royalties are eventually received, although the exact arrangement has not yet been agreed upon. Whatever the final arrangement, it will be within the terms of the Public Servants Inventions Act, which is soon to be proclaimed.
It has been decided to make this new process available in the near future to the textile industry. This will be done in the normal way through the crown company, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, which was established in 1947 to administer the commercial use of inventions belonging to the crown.



H.M.C.S. &quot;MAGNIFICENT&quot;  REFERENCE TO COURT MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Now that the summary trial of the ratings on the Magnificent have been completed, having regard to all the circumstances connected with these cases, has the minister given or does he intend to give consideration to the granting of amnesty or pardon to those who participated in the occurrence, other than those who were tried by court-martial?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I recall the procedure, there were three who were court-martialled and something over 40 who were tried summarily. Of the latter, I think about 35 were cautioned and others-


John George Diefenbaker: They lost some pay.


Ralph Osborne Campney: -lost some pay or lost some rank. The procedure is that court-martial proceedings are completed and sent to the chief of the naval staff, and he sends them to me with his comments. So far as the summary trials are concerned, the sentences would

Inquiries of the Ministry only come before me in the event that the ratings should appeal by way of application for redress of grievance. I have not received any such application. In answer to the question generally therefore I would say that I have not considered amnesty or pardon in any of these cases.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would he inform the house if his department has received a full report in connection with the recent road scandal in the province of Ontario?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received the full report of the special committee established by the Ontario legislature to investigate the alleged road scandal.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will he inform the house why and by what authority he has had the national film board withdraw a film that has been made for television purposes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume that this question is related to a film project of which Your Honour and I are both aware. I might tell the house that the Speaker, myself and several other members of the house saw some of the shots that were taken. After we had seen them the people who were working on the project in the film board came to the conclusion that they would not make a satisfactory picture. I must say I concurred in that view-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and as the minister responsible I am happy to take the responsibility for the decision. I do not think a picture purporting to show parliament at work would be very adequate if it included neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Why was that decision not taken before the money was spent to make the film?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I intend to come clean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What a departure from precedent!


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will be here a long time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As hon. members on both sides of the house have sometimes pointed out, there are at times public servants who are rather enthusiastic, and sometimes they do things which they regard as in the ordinary course of routine about which they omit to tell the responsible minister. When I heard of this project the money had been spent. I did not think it had been spent very well or done very wisely, and I took it upon myself as the minister responsible to say that I concurred in the view, which the officers of the film board themselves suggested, that this would not be a suitable picture.


Harold Edward Winch: Can we call you as a witness before a committee to say that?



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement on March 14 by Hon. Paul Beaulieu, minister of trade and commerce for Quebec, that his province has adequate power sources, does not want to sign any contracts for outside supplies, and is unlikely to be ready to take any natural gas from western Canada for several years, does the Canadian government still intend to prohibit western Canadian gas from entering markets within economic reach in southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the United States midwest until after Quebec and Ontario are served?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I answered a similar question a few days ago that was expressed in more concise form, to the effect that the policy with respect to Canadian gas was still that which had been stated, I think it was, on March 13, 1953.


Carl Olof Nickle: May I ask a supplementary question? Did the Canadian government not ascertain the attitude of the Quebec government before considering committing the Canadian taxpayer to financial support of an all-Canadian pipe line to serve Quebec and Ontario?
[Mr. Campney.l


Mr.   SI Laureni@: The Canadian government has not committed the Canadian taxpayer to financial support of a pipe line to serve the people of Ontario and Quebec.


Carl Olof Nickle: I should like to direct another question to the Prime Minister. I am sure he would not want to evade my previous question. Did the Canadian government not ascertain the attitude of the Quebec government before considering committing the Canadian taxpayer to the support of this proposed all-Canadian pipe line?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The federal government did not feel that there was any necessity for ascertaining the attitude of the Quebec government with respect to a matter which did not seem to concern the Quebec government. No effort was made by the federal government to ascertain, on its own, what were the sale prospects for natural gas in Quebec or in Ontario.


Carl Olof Nickle: I have another supplementary question, sir. I suggest the Quebec hydro commission would be the distributors of gas in Quebec, and would it not seem logical that their position as potential purchasers of gas should be considered by this government before committing the Canadian taxpayer to any project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Canadian taxpayer has not been committed to any project at all.


Carl Olof Nickle: I have one further supplementary question, in an effort to clear up the confusion in my mind as to what government policy is. Does this government intend to prohibit the sale of western Canadian gas in nearby sections of the United States market until such time as the Quebec Hydro Electric Commission and other potential customers in Ontario and Quebec make up their minds to buy it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Government policy has been declared in the house, and the manner in which it will be applied will depend upon circumstances as they develop.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Would the Minister of Labour be in a position to comment on this morning's announcement that the number of applicants at the employment offices now stands at 613,439?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Milton Fowler Gregg: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the house is in the midst of a debate on unemployment, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to discuss that matter at length at this time.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Would the minister be prepared to make a statement on this matter at the earliest possible moment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will agree that since we have a debate on unemployment now taking place, these matters are being dealt with currently.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot; CONCERNING CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noteworthy (York South):: May
I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport? Will he comment on the startling report that appeared in Saturday's Globe and Mail regarding alleged political interference in the granting of St. Lawrence seaway contracts?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Before answering, I wish to say that this question was brought to my attention as I was entering the chamber at 2.30, and therefore I have not had an opportunity of reading the article to which my hon. friend refers. However, I can assure him and this house that all the contracts awarded by the St. Lawrence seaway authority have been awarded through public advertisement for tenders and in each case the lowest tenderer has received the contract, in accordance with the long established practice of this government relating to the letting of public contracts.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue which, inadvertently, was sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue would take the question as notice. In view of the fact that a ruling recently brought down by the income tax appeal board apparently used the term "psychological discounts", and since this might have a bearing on income tax accounts to be filed in the very near future, would the minister indicate at this time what the board meant by the expression "psychological
2222	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry discounts", when it referred to the particular case of a Winnipeg lumber firm?


James Joseph McCann: I am not acquainted with the animal, any more than my hon. friend. However, I shall try to get him the information, and let him have it at a later date.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. With reference to the Canadian Press report in today's press that the Bank of Canada reduced official holdings of U.S. dollars and gold by $94 million in February, will the minister say:
1.	What is the significance of this operation at the present time as regards the premium on the Canadian dollar?
2.	Is this government policy?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, to answer the second question first, it is government policy.
To answer question No. 1: The $94 million that was spent in February by way of a reduction in United States dollars and gold in the holdings of the Bank of Canada went principally to the purchase of $50 million in Canadian bonds held in the United States and payable in that country. The remainder was used in stabilizing the market when the price of United States dollars was rising during a short period of three or four days.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question arising from that asked by the hon. member for Greenwood. Would the minister explain the effect of the use of the United States funds referred to on the situation as between the United States and the Canadian dollar?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I would be delighted to do so when we get into committee of supply on my estimates.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the reference thereto made by


President Eisenhower over the week end, would the minister tell us what has been happening at the meeting of the disarmament committee of the United Nations being held in London?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I expect to be saying something further about this, I would hope, later in the week, when the debate on external affairs begins. Meantime I can say now that the disarmament committee of the five powers has been meeting in London. We have been represented at those meetings by our high commissioner, and only today we sent our permanent representative at the United Nations in New York to London to assist in that representation.
The results of the meetings up to the present have not been such as to give us much cause for satisfaction, but the meetings are continuing.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-YaTmoulh-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Will he inform the house if the haddock survey which is taking place, reportedly in or adjacent to Canadian waters, conducted by the United States government, is being paid for in part by the Canadian government, and whether we are taking any part in the survey?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: No foreign government is doing any sort of fisheries survey in Canadian waters. However, the United States government is doing its share of a joint research program agreed upon by the international commission to conserve the fisheries of the northwest Atlantic, in the high seas adjacent to Canadian waters. Canada is doing her share of this program, and in addition we are doing all the research within our own territorial waters.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In order to meet the requests of western farmers who are asking what is being done to accelerate the delivery of cheques under the Prairie Farm

Assistance Act, would the minister state the present position and when it is expected this will be completed?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say at the moment is that all the staff we have and all the facilities we have are being pressed into operation to get the payments out as rapidly as they can be gotten out under the circumstances.
I am not in a position to say when it will be completed.


John George Diefenbaker: What proportion is out?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure but I should think about three-quarters.


EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
1955 AND 1956
The house resumed, from Friday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Prudham for the second reading of Bill No. 190, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Mr. T. S. Barnell (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I might be able to deal with this matter after the supper adjournment. However I shall attempt to collect my thoughts now, and make one or two references to the renewal of the terms of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and the modifications the government is now proposing.
In common with other hon. members who have taken part in the debate, I am inclined to believe that this is a subject which might rightly be the cause of a good deal of head-scratching by hon. members. Just why we should continue to re-enact a measure which provides for the payment of subsidies for the production of a commodity such as gold which, from most points of view, is useless, seems hard to understand.
I have been interested to note that the minister and other government spokesmen have carefully avoided making any reference to what one might describe as the basic reasons for the introduction of the measure. I can only assume that this measure, involving the expenditure of some millions of dollars of public funds, must be brought in because the government considers it of basic importance to the national interest.
I imagine the point made by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener), that the United States government is prepared to pay for gold at the rate of $35 an ounce, thus offering Canada a means of adjusting her balance of trade with the United States,
21, 1955	2223
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act might be accepted as the immediate and practical objective of subsidizing the position of Canadian gold on the world market.
Nevertheless I cannot refrain from offering the comment that the statement by the government indicates that this is a sort of benevolent measure for the purpose, primarily, of keeping people employed in the gold mining industry.
If one were in fact to adopt the government's statements at their face value, one could legitimately draw one or two contrasts in that regard as far as government expenditures are concerned. One or two of the speakers who participated in the debate mentioned the thousands of people who are involved in the gold mining industry. The figures ran to around 18,000 or 20,000 people. There was something about that figure that caught my attention, in view of the fact that it is claimed that in order to provide employment for those 18,000 or 20,000 people it is necessary to introduce a measure that has cost an estimated $14 million in the last year.
I was interested in that because I happened to notice, for example, in the supplementary estimates which were tabled in the house by the Minister of Finance the other day an item to cover the operating losses of the fisheries prices support board. Because of the number of people involved I took the trouble to compare the number involved in the fishing industry with those in the gold mining industry.
The 1951 census figures show that 19,972 males were employed in the gold mining industry of Canada. The same figures indicate that 43,830 male fishermen were employed in the fishing industry of Canada. Of that 43,000, 17,915 were employed in one province only, namely the province of Newfoundland.
I suppose one could draw some sort of moral about the kind of society in which we live when this government is prepared to spend $14 million and more to subsidize the production of Canadian gold, in effect to increase its price on the world market; yet to subsidize on world markets the price of a basically useful commodity such as the codfish of our Atlantic fisheries, with approximately the same number of people employed in one province alone as are employed right across Canada in the gold mining industry, our fisheries prices support board gets the magnificent sum of $744,382 to carry out in essence the same purpose.
I am not going to attempt to follow the argument through to any extreme conclusion, but I think this is the kind of measure which should give hon. members cause for a good
2224	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act deal of thought. We should think about those basic anomalies that exist within the economic structure of our society. I agree, as did the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he spoke on Friday evening, that this is the kind of measure which, under the existing circumstances facing hon. members, we cannot do anything but support.
In so far as the proposed changes in the present formula do have the effect of decreasing the subsidy to those mining companies which basically do not require any such subsidy, I suppose we can say that this measure is an improvement over the existing legislation. But there are some points which the government seems to ignore completely in its calculation. These are points which the hon. member for Cape Breton South was attempting to emphasize when he spoke about considering the people who dig the gold.
I must confess that I was rather surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), when she made interjections during the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. The hon. member for Cape Breton South was attempting to emphasize the needs of the people in the gold mining industry. He was quoting from a report which had been produced by the economic organization of the workers which is basically interested in furthering the welfare of the mining people in those communities. As I listened to the hon. member for Timiskaming it was obvious to me that the point of view she expressed bore in many respects a remarkable similarity to the point of view that I have heard expressed and have read as an expression of the opinions of the mine operators of this country.
I am not surprised that perhaps she should not agree with all the conclusions arrived at in the brief submitted to the committee by the united steel workers of America, but I was surprised at the manner in which the hon. member attempted to challenge the authenticity of the figures and the data which were published in that report. To me, Mr. Speaker, that was a grave reflection upon, and a grave challenge to the genuineness and legitimacy of the organizations which bargain on behalf of the workers across this country.


Mrs. Shipley:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the hon. member for Cape Breton South questions on Friday evening I was dubious that he was in order in bringing up points in relation to the working conditions of the miners who are strictly under the jurisdiction of provincial governments, and I was also very dubious of the


facts he cited. I knew some of them to be absolutely incorrect, and that is why I asked him the source of his material. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the present speaker is in order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I may reply to what the hon. member calls a point of order, may I say that was not the tenor of the objection she raised on Friday night to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. The tenor of her remarks was as follows. The hon. member for Cape Breton South said, as reported at page 2188 of Hansard:
I am reasonably sure that the brief was factual.
The hon. member said:
And I am reasonably sure it is not.
A little later on, when the hon. member for Cape Breton South was giving some statistics in regard to the arrangements for holidays and other working conditions of the miners in that industry, and other matters, she said at page 2189 of Hansard:
Several of those statements are absolutely inaccurate. What is the source of your information?
At that moment I happened to have a copy of the brief, and I was looking at the tables the hon. member for Cape Breton South had used as the source of his information. Perhaps that was what occasioned my surprise that she should question the statistics, because under the tables the source is given. Under one, it says "dominion bureau of statistics"; under the other it says "source, Department of Labour, Canada".
I bring up this matter in all seriousness to indicate that an organization like the united steel workers, in presenting a brief on a serious matter concerning the welfare of people in the mining communities of Ontario, would go to the proper place to get their figures. Their research department is just as well qualified as that of the mining operators, and is able to do accurate research work.
It did seem to me that it was not just what one would have expected from an hon. member who stated that she came from one of the gold mining areas, that she should thus question an hon. member who was attempting to suggest that the welfare and working conditions of the people in the mining communities should be a consideration when we have a measure of this kind before the house.
I would suggest that even if what the hon. member says is right, that the people in the mining communities of Ontario come under provincial labour laws, when this parliament is being asked to approve a measure which has involved the paying out of

something like $14 million from the dominion treasury it is certainly a matter about which we can concern ourselves. I submit that it is quite proper, if we are going to approve this measure, that we should take the position that if we are going to pay out this kind of money in subsidies our first concern should be to see that the welfare of the people who are doing the producing in the mining communities is protected.
The hon. member mentioned some figures with respect to the wages being paid to miners. If I remember correctly she stated that on June 1, 1954, the wages of miners other than gold miners, that is metal miners, were $75 a week, and that in gold mining the figure was $62 a week. The figures I have indicate that on May 1 of last year the average weekly wage for miners in the mining industry was $63.84, whereas in metal mining other than gold mining it was $76.80. I think the figure which the hon. member quoted indicated that on June 1, 1954, the average in gold mining was $64.40.


Marie Ann Shipley: And I quoted the source.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I assume these figures come basically from the same source as those which the hon. member for Cape Breton South quoted. They are essentially in agreement one with the other. That is another reason I feel some surprise that the hon. member should question the accuracy of figures which are essentially in agreement with those she quoted herself.
There is one thing which the hon. member very carefully did not do. She quoted the weekly wage, but she very carefully avoided quoting the average hourly wage. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, as of May 1, 1954 the average hourly earning in the gold mining industry in the province of Ontario was $1.33, whereas in other metal mining it was $1.92. The figures show also that 99-2 per cent of people in the gold mining industry were working a 48-hour week, and that 86 [DOT] 9 per cent of those in other mining were working a 40-hour week. When you couple these figures I think the picture will begin to emerge as to just how relatively poor are the wages and working conditions of the people engaged in gold mining as compared with those engaged in other types of mining.
This is something the house should be aware of when it considers a measure of this kind. One might put it this way. We are being asked to approve the payment of subsidies for the production of gold as being in the national interest, and at the same time we are demanding that the people who work
21. 1955	2225
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in the gold mining industry pay a large subsidy themselves. It seems to me that a very valid point of view might be to suggest that the government insist that if these subsidies are going to be paid, the workers in the industry should not be required to work under substandard conditions; that if it is in the national interest to continue to produce gold then the miners in the gold mining industry should have at least a part of the advance in benefits in the way of hours, wages and working conditions that are enjoyed by workers in other comparable industries.
I think this is a place where the government might very well apply a principle which is accepted in other ways in relation to wages paid to government employees. I refer to the prevailing rate principle. I would like to have seen worked out in this measure a formula which would have required the recipients of these benefits to adopt that principle. This parliament should say to them, "As a condition of qualifying for benefits under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act you must put into effect prevailing rates as far as the metal mining industry is concerned."
It seems to me that is a principle which could have been worked out in a proper manner without increasing the total subsidy required by too large an amount. I realize that people who have put money into the development of mines expect to get some return, and I am not going to deny that under the existing arrangements as far as gold production in this country is concerned that should be so. But when it comes to carrying on this industry in the national interest it seems to me that our first concern should be with the people who are working in the industry. Where the original investment had been returned with good interest, where there had been a generous return on the investment, our formula could very well be drawn in such manner that the question of continued profits over and above anything more than a modest rate of interest, in secure, producing mines, should be a factor in the calculation.
I do not know just how this would work out, but I have one or two figures here to which I should like to refer. I do not claim to know too much about gold mining, but I would like to refer to figures which are set out in the brief the authenticity of which is questioned by the hon. member for Timis-kaming. I doubt very much if the figures are very far from being accurate. They point out that in the case of all gold mining companies in the Porcupine belt the total of
2226	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act dividends and bonuses paid from 1912 to 1952 amounted to $296,588,000, whereas the total wages paid in the same period amounted to $376,093,000. According to these figures one of these mines, namely Dome Mines Limited, during the years 1915 to 1952 paid out in dividends and bonuses a total of $72,888,000- I am just using round figures-whereas the total of wages paid out from 1912 to 1952 amounted to $45,832,000.
In that particular case the total paid out over a long period of years in dividends and dividend bonuses amounted to half as much again as the total amount that had been paid out in wages over the same or a longer period of years. Yet I notice that in 1953 that particular mine received in assistance payments the sum of $670,844. If my rough calculations are correct, under the new formula in the present act, on the basis of the same production at the same cost, that mine would receive for a year's production $653,870.
As I say, I am not acquainted in detail with the mines in those particular areas, but I lived in a gold mining area for a number of years and I have some idea that a mine which has paid out over such a period of years in the way of dividends and bonuses almost as much as or more than it has paid out in wage costs over that entire period, certainly gave a nice return on the money which was originally put into the development of that mine.
I use those figures purely to illustrate my point that it should have been possible to write into this act something of the prevailing rates principle, and that it could probably have been done without increasing by too fantastic a figure the amount required in the way of gold mining subsidy. If this measure is to be continued as a measure in the national interest, that is the kind of approach we should be taking today. We should not continue to expect that the workers in the gold industry should have to subsidize indefinitely, by low wages and long hours of work, the continued production of this particular commodity.
If I understand the matter correctly, the fishermen I spoke of earlier, or most of them, in the province of Newfoundland enjoy an average cash income not exceeding $1,000 a year. Not all the money to which I referred under the fisheries prices support board will go to the fishermen of that one province; but as a matter of policy we are prepared to subsidize that number of fishermen for basically the same reason, namely the low price of the commodity they produce in the world market, only to the extent of approximately $744,000.


Mr. Prudham:: That is a sign that we have a healthy industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The fact that that is the case in an industry such as the fishing industry to me indicates clearly that behind the introduction of this Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act involving millions of dollars there are more reasons than just the maintaining of employment and income. At the same time I think it emphasizes the importance of the considerations I have been attempting to outline in developing the formula that is being brought in under this bill.
As I said earlier, I go along in supporting the principle of the bill, as did the hon. member for Cape Breton South, under existing conditions. Nevertheless, with regard to the bill as we have it, I certainly feel that more consideration could have been given to making it possible for those receiving this assistance to be required to bring the standards under which their people work up to prevailing conditions in the mining industry.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt, as did others who have preceded me in this debate, to show what place gold has in the economic scheme of things. I have read a number of reports of economists, and I find that there is no agreement amongst them on this particular subject. As a layman I find it extremely confusing, and I think my friend the hon. member for St. Paul's summed up the matter very well. After speaking on the subject for at least half an hour on Friday night, he then had this to say, as reported at page 2184 of Hansard:
I have not pretended to try to solve the question of what gold's place will be eventually. I think X have said enough to confuse the house and myself to the extent that we will admit the simple proposition that gold does have some practical use and application today.
Hon. members may agree with the philosopher who said that nothing so completely addles the human brain as do love and currency. Having said that, I will say nothing more on the position of gold in regard to our economic system.
I am supporting this bill as proposed, Mr. Speaker, without any reservations. I wish to congratulate the government for reviewing a situation where the taxpayers' money is subsidizing an industry. The government are the guardians of the taxpayers' dollar and, being guardians, this bill would indicate that they have come to the conclusion that in cases where gold mines are able to make and are making substantial profits without assistance from the national treasury, then these

operators should stand on their own feet. If a product can be produced at a cost not exceeding $26.50 and can be readily sold for $34 or $35, it would seem to me reasonable to believe that the profits are fair. I see no need for increasing the profits of these operators from government funds.
Using the figures appearing in the blue book of 1953, one finds that there would be only two mines in this category; I refer to mines producing gold at less than $26.50 an ounce. In the case of gold mines whose costs of producing an ounce of gold are over $26.50 and not more than $45, this bill will provide assistance, in some cases more than that provided under the old formula. A number of the mines in this category would be compelled to close or to reduce their production if assistance were not available. The closing of these mines would result in unemployment and the probable bankruptcy of communities where they are located. For this reason I support without hesitation the paying out of public funds to maintain an industry where, without it, many people would be forced to move to other parts of Canada and leave behind them their homes and accumulated lifetime assets.
I do not believe there will be any curtailment of production in the gold mining industry because of the proposed changes in the bill. Mines making a reasonable profit without subsidy will continue to operate, and those whose costs of producing an ounce of gold remain between $26.50 and $45 will continue to draw assistance. I can foresee no serious cut-back in the amount of gold produced in Canada. We are today producing more gold than we were when the original Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act came into force in 1948, although 70 mines are producing more than 117 did in 1948. I must add here that none of the mines which closed between 1948 and 1953 was closed for any other reason than lack of commercial ore; not, as some would like us to believe, lack of assistance from the government. One has only to check the Canadian mines handbook to verify this statement.
I should now like to give the house the picture in my own constituency and more particularly in my home town of Yellowknife, which is almost entirely dependent upon gold mining. It will be appreciated that under the bill this year a new formula is introduced to determine the amount of subsidy a mine is entitled to receive. Some will receive more and some of course will receive less than under the old formula. It has been estimated by the mining people in Yellowknife that the cut-back in that area will represent 20 per cent of the total contemplated reduction in
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act assistance under the act. I doubt, sir, whether the actual percentage will prove to be that high, but it will still represent a substantial reduction to the mines in the Yellowknife area.
The people living in this community are of that particular breed referred to by my colleague from Timislraming, the pioneers who are getting fewer in number every day. They are the people we are depending upon to push back our frontiers. They are people, Mr. Speaker, who are endowed with vision, enthusiasm and determination, and take pride in standing on their own two feet. I am sure they would much rather get along on their own rather than be wet-nursed by subsidies. They know better than anyone living in our so-called civilized areas the great potential of the north not only in gold but in uranium, lead, zinc, copper, silver, nickel, oil and other valuable commodities. They realize that the economy of the north should not be based on one product only. They know there is a need for diversification in mining, as a guarantee that the north will continue to open up and support greater numbers of our Canadian people. They also realize that the answer is not wholly in subsidies to the gold mines.
The cost of transportation is keeping costs of gold mining at a high level and is deterring the development of the north. Just to give the house an idea of the cost of living or of gold mining in the Yellowknife area, here are a few examples of prices of staple commodities. Butter is 85 cents a pound, eggs 90 cents a dozen, fresh milk 55 cents a quart, sugar 17 cents a pound, fresh celery approximately 75 or 80 cents a bunch, and fuel oil 31J cents a gallon. While on the subject of fuel oil, this oil is produced at Norman Wells for 18 cents a gallon. It is shipped by water, the cheapest means of transportation, at a cost of 12 cents and the remaining 1J cents goes to the agent at Yellowknife. On all the items I have mentioned, and on every item brought into the north, the difference between outside prices and Yellowknife prices is largely due to transportation costs.
You may think, Mr. Speaker, on first consideration that I am out of order in bringing the question of transportation into this debate, but as I have stated there will be a substantial reduction in assistance to the gold mines in the Yellowknife area under this new formula. I am only trying to show the house that transportation is keeping our costs of producing gold at a high level, and with a reduction in the rates of transportation it is conceivable that the mines in the Yellowknife area will be able to get along with still less in subsidies.
2228	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
There are three ways of shipping goods into the north. The largest portion is shipped by rail to Waterways, Alberta, and from there by water. Another route is by rail to Grim-shaw, Alberta, then by truck to Hay River and from there by water or by air. The third means is by air from Edmonton. Our summer shipping season is short, and it is necessary for the gold mines and others doing business to carry eight to ten months' inventories. The carrying of these large inventories requires further expenditures in the building and maintaining of warehouses, and thus adds to the costs of living or of gold mining.
As for transportation of mine workers and others into the north, we have a six times a week flight service from Edmonton operated by Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The cost of return transportation from Edmonton to Yellowknife, a distance of approximately 1,200 miles, is $144, or 12 cents per passenger mile. As a comparison I should like to point out that the same air lines company on its Pacific route charges $225 return, Vancouver to Hawaii, a distance of 6,400 miles, or a rate of 3-5 cents per passenger mile. Another example is the return fare from Edmonton to Regina on Canadian Pacific Air Lines which is $64, and the trip takes approximately the same flying time as the trip from Edmonton to Yellowknife and return. Air freight rates on the same scheduled air line are as much out of line with rates charged on other runs as are passenger fares.
It would take me too long, Mr. Speaker, to go into the various aspects of transportation costs and their relation to the development of the north. The gold mines and the people of the north are not asking for something that is impossible. We are not asking for any preferential treatment. We would much rather stand on our own feet, and I believe the government has the tools to do the job. For instance, the air transport board could investigate both the freight and passenger rates being charged at the present time by Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and if they find that the rates could be cut, as I am sure they can be, then they should give C.P.A. an opportunity to cut the rates or, better still, grant a licence to someone who will.
As for water transportation, the government again has the tools. The crown-owned Northern Transportation Company is carrying the bulk of freight from the railhead north, and if the government is interested in developing the north a look at the financial position of the Northern Transportation Company since its inception will, I am sure, make it clear
[Mr. Hardie.l

that the people of the north are paying through the nose for water transportation. As I have said before, we in the north do not wish to be wet-nursed. All we are asking for is a fair break. I believe the government has the tools to do the job, to do something to create conditions that would make it unnecessary to pay subsidies to gold mines.
I submit that this could be accomplished by the method I have suggested, lowering costs of transportation, which would reduce the costs of gold mining and open up our northland for the full development of its natural, resources.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT
Milton Fowler Gregg: the second reading of Bill No. 188, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: It is almost five minutes to six, Mr. Speaker, but I believe anything I have to say about this bill can be easily said before six o'clock, because of the fact I understand the bill is to be referred to the industrial relations committee.
There are just one or two comments that have occurred to me since I received a copy of the bill. I should like to comment briefly on the provision for the payment of compensation according to the laws of the province in which the employee is normally employed, rather than that in which the accident may occur. I wonder whether the minister has considered that some of these people are certain to be itinerant workers who may go from province to province. While I realize this is likely to be the exception rather than the rule, I wonder if this matter has been considered by the minister. Does the amendment to section 1, paragraph (b), covered in clause 1 of this bill, and also the amendment to section 3, paragraph (b) of the act, which is covered by clause 2 of the bill, make provision for a person who, to all intents and purposes, is an itinerant worker

floating from place to place, who could not be said to have a permanent place of employment?
Then, too, in clause 2 of this bill, the new section 4-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that this is second reading, and we are discussing the principle of the bill.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is true, of course, Mr. Speaker, and the bill is going to the industrial relations committee where probably some of these things can be answered. In order to facilitate the passage of the bill the comments I wish to make are fairly general in character, because of those things which have come to my attention since perusing the bill.
With respect to the general character of the bill, there is not much to which we can take exception. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to which we can take exception.
I believe it is a move in the right direction to tidy up the act and put into effect those provisions which will really make for a more efficient administration of the compensation for those persons who are employed by the government or government agencies.
I do believe, however, that something might be said with respect to the payment of compensation and the apparent transfer of responsibility from the Minister of Finance to the treasury board in general. If Your Honour decides that a discussion of the individual clauses of this bill is out of order at this time, of course, I am left with no choice but to leave my interrogation of the minister until such time as the matter is before the industrial relations committee. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I feel your remarks on this occasion are limiting the opposition to a rather remarkable extent.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My
remarks will be quite brief, Mr. Speaker. An examination of the bill reveals there is not a great deal I would have to add to what I said while we were considering the resolution preceding the bill. I think we can, as I suggested in committee, support the principle of this bill. I find myself in agreement with the suggestion that the change which brings government employees under the compensation law of the province in which the person is usually employed is a good one. It is a change which I believe the minister suggested is in line with the practice which is being developed between the provinces.
Perhaps I might add just one word to what I said at the resolution stage, that we are confining the level of compensation to the 50433-141
21, 1955	2229
Government Employees Compensation Act provincial level. Personally I would prefer to see this house setting the pattern, taking the lead, in respect to compensation arrangements, though I realize that might involve us in some constitutional problems. I am pleased also to note the provision in the bill respecting employees of Canada employed outside of Canada, whereby the coverage provided is not confined to Canadian citizens only but is extended to any employees who may be engaged by the government.
I am sure that consideration of this bill in the industrial relations committee will give rise to some interesting discussion of the details. Generally speaking, I think I can say that this group is glad the government has introduced this bill. Perhaps our only regret is that they did not get around to doing so at an earlier date.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I am not going to argue the bill. The bill is all right, and the changes are in the right direction. I have a point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make and it concerns young college students who are hired by different departments and sent to isolated areas. I am thinking now particularly of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I know of at least two young men who went with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys within the last year or so and were sent to Knob Lake, Labrador. Both these lads were drowned, and there is no provision in this bill for such people. The parents had spent between $4,000 and $5,000 in putting these lads through university, and they were just about to graduate. They took this job and lost their lives. There is no compensation payable under those circumstances.
I am saying this now because when the bill gets into committee it is rather difficult to get anything done. I should like the minister to check with his colleagues to ascertain whether or not it is possible to classify young students who are sent to these isolated areas, and who may meet with accidents, as employees for compensation purposes. They are not now so classified. I have one particular case, and I shall tell the minister all about it when the bill is in committee. I have one case showing why this change should be made.


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


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, perhaps-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind hon. members that when the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I could do it in one minute, if the house permits.
2230	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act Mr. Deputy Speaker:	Has the minister
leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, the shortness of this debate on second reading indicates that this bill has commended itself pretty well to the house. When the resolution was before the committee on February 28 last I gave an outline of its main points. As the hon. member for Hamilton West pointed out, this bill provides that compensation shall be at the rate effective in the province in which the injured person is normally employed rather than the province in which the injury takes place. Second, it includes persons in government employ not paid by direct wage or salary. Third, employees assigned to foreign posts are covered for compensation purposes by the Ontario rate. Fourth, the act will recognize locally engaged employees in Canadian offices abroad.
The reason I recapitulate these four points is that there is a fifth that I did not touch on very fully, and that was an oversight. That is a change that has to do with third party cases. In the past an employee injured while on duty by an outside party or disabled through defective conditions in buildings or for other causes had the choice of taking the compensation under the act and surrendering claim for damages against the crown or, on the other hand, of taking legal action himself for an amount which he felt would adequately compensate him. If he collected less than he would have received for medical care and compensation under the act, the difference was payable to him. If he obtained a greater judgment than the value of the benefits under the act, he was that much better off.
On the other hand, if he decided to take the benefits provided under the act the crown was subrogated to his rights of redress against the third party. There would be action in the name of Her Majesty, and if there happened to be a judgment for an amount greater than the cost of hospital, medical care and compensation, the excess would be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.
The change here will permit payment of any excess judgment money to the employee, subject to the government being relieved up
	t

to the amount of the excess for further treatment or compensation in connection with the same injury. Usually, however, the crown suit has been for the actual amount paid out under the compensation act; therefore there was no excess to worry about.
Also, in the past there has had to be a court judgment before the employee could be paid the difference between the judgment and the cost of medical care and value of compensation. In future he can receive this difference if the Minister of Labour approves of a compromise after out of court settlement. I thought I would give that explanation of the fifth point to have it on the record.
The object of this bill, of course, is to do in this field of workmen's compensation what the government is doing or trying to do in all other of its relations with its employees, namely to make possible conditions of public service as beneficial to the employee as is provided by good private employers. With that yardstick we are perhaps justified in retaining the association with the provincial compensation boards rather than setting up full federal machinery, as I think was hinted at by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni this afternoon. I would remind the house, too, that such a federal board would be very expensive to administer when it is considered that the federal employees to be served are scattered throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and some of them beyond the shores of Canada.
The hon. member for Hamilton West referred to the travelling federal worker. Of course, even if he were travelling all the time and carried his office in his pockets he would have some federal government office to which he would report, and the province in which that office was located would be the province which would provide his workmen's compensation. For instance, I can visualize a federal employee in the city of Montreal doing a great deal of travelling in the Atlantic provinces. In that case his injuries would be taken care of by the workmen's compensation laws of the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to university students employed by federal government departments during the summer months. I would point out that the laws of compensation in all provinces have limitations, which I might paraphrase in this way. An accident or an illness suffered must be related to the regular duties of the employee if he or she is to qualify for benefits. Under that limitation, of course, if an employee, whether temporary or permanent, is injured or contracts a disease that is not related to his regular work, he does not

qualify under any workmen's compensation act. But if the university student working in the summer is injured in the course of his duties it would be possible for him to make application for benefits under this legislation in exactly the same way as though he were a permanent civil servant.


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

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 189, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps I can give a statement in committee. Would that be satisfactory?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Temporary employee.
William Moore Benidickson: Now that hon. members have had a chance to study the bill it may be seen that it contains only a few amendments to sections, and that generally speaking they are designed to assist in the administration of the act and to remove a few inconsistencies that in the first year of operating the act have become apparent.
As I indicated the other day in speaking on the resolution, the principal amendment deals with the extension for a limited period the time within which new contributors to the superannuation account may elect to contribute for prior service. This is necessitated because of the tremendous influx of contributors under this new act in 1954, nearly all of whom have periods of prior service for which they wish to elect.
The amendments will also make it possible to revoke or alter an election by reducing the remaining instalments to be paid and thereby reducing the entitlement to pension. I shall explain this later when we come to deal with the sections of the bill. The terms and conditions under which this would be permitted are proposed to be left to the governor in council, but I may say that the intention would be to apply this provision particularly in cases of real financial difficulty occurring after the election is made, or if perchance the estimated cost of the election 50433-1411
Public Service Superannuation Act was calculated on the basis of incorrect information, as is found to be the case from time to time.
The only major extension in coverage under the amendments will be to include sessional employees of the Senate and the House of Commons as contributors upon designation by the governor in council, as is already being done in the case of prevailing rate and seasonal employees. Apart from this there are one or two other minor extensions in coverage which I shall be prepared to explain when we are discussing the individual sections of the bill.
The other amendments deal with certain aspects of the transfer provisions when a person moves from a position under the Defence Services Pension Act or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to one under the Public Service Superannuation Act, and with some purely administrative points. There are one or two minor inconsistencies in the benefit provisions which have become apparent during the first year of operation of the act. All of these are of a minor nature and in these cases also I shall be prepared to give an explanation when the individual clauses are before the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as has already been indicated, this legislation is welcome. It does not make a great many changes, but those it makes seem to be necessary in order to smooth out some of the anomalies that have been discovered during the past year or so in connection with the Public Service Superannuation Act. There are one or two points of detail in connection with some of the clauses about which I wish to put questions to the
Public Service Superannuation Act parliamentary assistant; indeed, in just a moment I will put to him a question with regard to clause 1, which we are now discussing.
First of all, however, I want to say in a general way that I thoroughly agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Greenwood as to the importance of our civil servants and as to the good job they do for democracy. The parliamentary assistant knows what will follow from that premise, namely that I think we should recognize that some of those who have served us in the past deserve a better deal than has yet been accorded to them. I trust that the Minister of Finance will recognize the fact that I for one shall expect of him some time during this session a thorough discussion of the position of superannuated civil servants. So far as I am concerned-and I believe I speak for a great many others both in and out of this chamber-it is not good enough for him simply to refer me to statements made by his predecessor, Hon. Douglas Abbott, and his predecessor prior to that, Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley.
This issue becomes more serious as the years go by. I feel that the Minister of Finance should come before the House of Commons with a definite proposal designed to alleviate the position of retired civil servants, particularly those retired a number of years ago, whose pensions are in the lower and the middle brackets. As I say, I am not expecting an answer on this point from the parliamentary assistant who is now piloting this legislation through the House of Commons, but I call for a facing up to this issue by the Minister of Finance before this session goes on much longer.
I am also disappointed that nothing has as yet been done with regard to a certain small group of civil servants, namely those who were in the old department of soldiers' civil re-establishment. That is an issue that has been debated on the floor of the House of Commons a number of times. It seems to me the request that these employees be permitted the rights they would have enjoyed had that D.S.C.R. been a recognized department of government at that time is one that should be met.
I now come to a few specific questions with regard to clause 1. Perhaps my questions can be recognized as relating to both clause 1 and clause 2 because, if I read the language of the bill correctly, they go together so far as sessional employees are concerned. Any reference to sessional employees is, by clause 1, taken out of the definition of "temporary employee", which would deny them the right

Public Service Superannuation Act to be covered by the Public Service Superannuation Act. Then when we get to clause 2. of this bill sessional employees are added, so they come within that group who can be covered by the Public Service Superannuation Act.
We in the House of Commons are particularly interested in that word "sessional" being deleted in the one place and added in the other, because some of us for a long time have felt that the sessional employees of the House of Commons should be accorded pension rights and privileges. I hope the parliamentary assistant will amplify this change. I hope he will tell us just who are included in the term "sessional employees" and whether or not any difficulties that have been in the way have been ironed out.
When we think of "sessional employees" there are various groups that come to the minds of some of us. There are the stenographers who work for members of the House of Commons on a sessional basis. There are the amanuenses up in the Hansard office who join with the reporters in helping to produce Hansard. There are certain other employees around the building, for instance those who work in the cafeteria and in the restaurant. I believe there are sessional employees on the messenger staff. I do not know whether or not any of the protective service men are on a sessional basis. I imagine most of them are on a year-round basis. I believe those who operate the elevators come under the Department of Public Works and are probably on a year-round basis.
In any case there are these various groups that come to my mind, and I believe we should have a statement by the parliamentary assistant on the record as to what groups are covered and whether all of the difficulties have been ironed out. Speaking of these various groups, there is another group very much in evidence around here, the page boys. They may not be thinking about pension matters yet but time does move on, and the day will come when some of them may be interested in such pension rights as they may have earned during the past when they served us as sessional employees. I do not know whether there is any stipulation elsewhere in the legislation with regard to age that has any bearing on their status, but I think it would be useful if the parliamentary assistant would give a fairly full statement as to the effects that flow from including sessional employees within the legislation.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


William Moore Benidickson: I think it would be proper to reply particularly to the hon. member for


Winnipeg North Centre at this time. He has outlined perfectly the effect of clause 1. By deleting the words "a sessional employee" from the present act it does make it possible to extend the benefits of the act to sessional employees of the Senate and the House of Commons, and the procedure to be followed will be exactly the same as that now followed in the case of employees who are paid on prevailing rates, such as those in the printing bureau and so on. After they have accumulated a certain amount of service, as set by the regulations, then the deputy minister can designate them by name, and when designated they become eligible to become contributors.
In the case of prevailing rates employees the practice under the regulations has been to not designate them until they have had five years of service. The reason for that is that no one obtains an annuity benefit under the act until he has five years of service. If he has less than five years of service, then upon death or retirement he or his estate would simply get back the amount of contributions. Therefore it is not considered desirable to start to collect contributions from either prevailing rates employees or sessional employees until they have five years or 60 months' cumulative service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point, would the parliamentary assistant explain what is meant by five years of service on the part of the sessional employees?


William Moore Benidickson: I gave the alternative, 60 months or five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, if a session consists of only six months in a year, then on that basis it would take ten years of elapsed time before the sessional employee would be in that position.


William Moore Benidickson: Ten years with sessions of six months' duration. There would be no point in collecting from employees of that kind until they had accumulated 60 months' service because until they had five years of service there would be no annuity value to them from the fund.


Mr. Trainor:: There is one aspect of
superannuation that interests me, and I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question about it. Does the government propose to make any adjustment for the influence of inflation on superannuation benefits? I think this is particularly appropriate in view of the fact that during the past 10 or 20 years particularly civil servants have paid their contributions in dollars that were worth 100 cents, but the pensions that are now paid are in dollars that are worth

50 cents. Has the government any measure in mind that may tend to adjust this difference and treat their employees with ordinary common justice?


William Moore Benidickson: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South would scarcely expect me to answer that question any more than did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, particularly for the reason that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised the question on January 11 and the Minister of Finance replied, as may be found at page 67 of Hansard for that date. He indicated that there was no-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the reply.


William Moore Benidickson: I shall read the reply. On that occasion the Minister of Finance said he had received representations along the lines suggested tonight by the two hon. members. He said he had reviewed what his predecessor had said on the subject last year, and he said he did not think he could add anything at that time, so far as the policy of the government was concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that score he is no better than his predecessor.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: The parliamentary assistant indicated that these employees would have to be employed for a period of 60 months at least, and then they would qualify to receive benefits if the occasion arose. How will their contributions be collected? Will they be required to make payment immediately for the whole period of 60 months, or will they be allowed to pay so much a month from then on?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the employee elects, prior service contributions would be spread over a period of time, and current service contributions would be by automatic deduction at the male rate of 6 per cent or female rate of 5 per cent of current earnings.


Charles Edward Johnston: But their prior service contributions would not have to be paid all in one amount?


William Moore Benidickson: No, so far as the prior service for the first 60 months is concerned, a plan would be worked out of future payments on an instalment basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose we should be grateful for any beginnings in this field, and I also realize that some of these sessional employees may do other work between sessions that comes under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Nevertheless it seems to me that the requirement that a person must work for us for ten years before he or she comes under the provisions of the
21. 1955	2235
Public Service Superannuation Act act is not quite good enough. We have moved quite a way in the last few years with respect to the whole question of pension matters and rights, and I hope that even yet some way can be found to make it possible for these people to come under the provisions of the act in less than ten years.
It sounds very plausible to say it is the same period of 60 months that applies to anyone else. Yet we expect these people to be on call or available for work here as our stenographers or as amanuenses or in various other capacities, and I hope this is only the first step toward the establishing of adequate and proper pension rights for all employees of the parliament of Canada.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Will members of the stenographic staff who have served more than 12 years be eligible for superannuation? Some of them have served 20 years. Will they have a pension?


William Moore Benidickson: If they have already accumulated 60 months of service in past sessions I have no doubt Mr. Speaker would designate them as people eligible immediately to become contributors under the act.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: They will be very glad to hear it.


Owen C. Trainor: In view of the fact that in the final analysis the government is really responsible for the fluctuations in the value of the dollar, does the parliamentary assistant not think the government has a corresponding responsibility to adjust pensions accordingly?


William Moore Benidickson: A pension plan, of
course, is a contract; but I must remind my hon. friend that many taxpayers are not provided with pensions or have the same problem to contend with, and whatever is done has to be done in fairness to all concerned, both those of the public service and those who pay for the pensions. I think it is generally understood that the pension plan available in the public service of Canada, even on its present basis, is probably as good as or better than any other plan of its kind.


Owen C. Trainor: I would ask the parliamentary assistant to take note of the fact that people on a fixed income, such as a pension, cannot adjust their income to take care of the fluctuations as other people can. The pensioner is helpless in this regard.


Mr. Monteith:: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could answer a couple of statistical questions. What is the number of sessional employees who are concerned, and what is the distribution as between male and female? What is the average number of sessions of service? Has he figures showing
2236	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act the average number of months worked in any one year, and also the percentage of turnover in sessional employees?


William Moore Benidickson: I have not the information in that detail, but the information would be available both to the hon. member and to myself upon inquiry of the Clerk or Mr. Speaker. I have no details of that nature. We are endeavouring simply to make the same opportunities available to eligible sessional people as are available generally in the public service.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Can the parliamentary assistant tell me how many employees it is expected will be affected?


William Moore Benidickson: In the House of Commons? No, I have not that information.


Harold Edward Winch: If the Department of Finance has not that information, on what actuarial basis have they reached their conclusion as to payments into the superannuation fund?


William Moore Benidickson: In so far as the sessional people are concerned, and in so far as their prior service in concerned, it is a voluntary thing. If and when a member of the staff of the House of Commons or Senate decides that he or she desires to be a contributor, then he or she decides to pay for that prior service on an agreed plan, and under the act the government is simply required to put into the fund an amount matching that which is paid in by the employee. This amount is in the estimates once a year and put before parliament.


Harold Edward Winch: Referring to what the hon. member for Fort William said, if an employee has had over 10 or 20 years' service and makes arrangements with the Department of Finance to pay for that service, then the government automatically matches that payment?


William Moore Benidickson: Matches the employee's contribution annually.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If these sessional employees have not paid in anything, will they get anything?


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman. If they become contributors then the government will match their contribution and from then on they become entitled to the regular provisions of the act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am referring to the question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Perth. If the parliamentary assistant is not informed, I am sure the hon. member for Perth is not asking these questions out of idle curiosity, and if he feels he needs that information might it not be made available?


William Moore Benidickson: I would have no hesitation in assisting the hon. member by consultation with Mr. Speaker to see if that information could not be obtained. I have no doubt it could. When a decision of this kind is reached it does not affect the ways and means immediately, because such moneys as will be required from parliament in matching grants will not be in this year's estimates.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I believe the hon. member for Greenwood intimated that there were some 12,000 employees still not under the Public Service Superannuation Act. He also intimated that in his estimation the majority of those would now be coming under the act; is that correct?


William Moore Benidickson: People who will not come under the act until this bill is passed are sessional employees, such as we have been discussing here. There are also persons here and elsewhere who are on a part-time basis, or persons who have been engaged for work that is not considered to be of more than 12 months' duration. Every year there are new employees who, on the anniversary of entering the service, do become contributors. There will always be, in a staff as large as that of the government, a certain number who are on part-time or on a prevailing rate and have not accumulated adequate service, or are sessional employees who have not had 60 months of service and so on, who will not be under the act.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would include the workers on canals who are only employed for five or six months?


William Moore Benidickson: That is right; they would be part-time. They might be seasonal employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I revert to a question I asked once before? Is there any starting age in the act that would have any bearing on the position of the page boys? I have in mind that some of these lads start to work for us rather young, and perhaps later on they become messengers or move to some other government employment. My question is, does the service they put in, no matter how young they may be, count for the purpose of the superannuation act if they have enough of it, in due course, to come under that act?


William Moore Benidickson: It would only count, Mr. Chairman, if the original work was classified as full-time work. They would be disqualified under the definition of temporary employee if it were only part-time work. If, during the session, it was a full day's work and classified sessional then of course it would be available to them at a later time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who decides what is a full day's work for page boys? It seems to me that they put in a pretty full day.


William Moore Benidickson: All employees are classified as either part-time or full-time sessional employees in accordance with the grading of Mr. Speaker, who is assisted by the internal economy commission.


Harold Edward Winch: That interests me, and I just ask this question for information. Let us take, for example, the postal employees across Canada. There are a great number of employees who are classified as casual. A number of them have worked continuously for years in the Post Office Department, yet have always been called casual employees.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No, temporary.


Harold Edward Winch: No, they are called casual in the Post Office Department. Will they come under the provisions of this act?


William Moore Benidickson: I would imagine from the description of my hon. friend they would. Incidentally I may tell the hon. member for Perth that I have some information that has been sent to me which indicates that roughly 350 employees in the House of Commons would be considered sessional.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Persons required to contribute.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I am just wondering if paragraph (d) of this clause means that there were some employees receiving over $600 and below $900 per year who had been refused participation in the fund. They were cut off as at January 1, 1954, and are now being reinstated; is that it?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. I could give an explanation of that. Under the former act the lowest salary limit for contributors was $600. Under the present act this limit was raised to $900, and that was done on the understanding that no full-time employee would be dropped as a contributor. It turns out, however, that a number of lightkeepers in Newfoundland earning salaries under $900 were unintentionally dropped. The amendment will have the effect of bringing those employees back under the act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the minister say a word about paragraph (f).


William Moore Benidickson: That is what we were discussing in connection with sessional employees. The period of course will be designated by the governor in council, but as I said, up to now in the case of prevailing rate employees the designation has been 50433-142
21, 1955
Public Service Superannuation Act made under regulations after a reasonable period of service, and is usually about five years.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Pensionable service.
Jay Waldo Monteith: How many employees in Newfoundland would be affected?


William Moore Benidickson: I understand about 25.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Right to amend or revoke election.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I am wondering what special circumstances require this change in the act. I note the addition of the words "except under such circumstances", and so on.


William Moore Benidickson: I mentioned that sometimes an employee in the public service will elect to contribute for prior service, and will do so on the basis of some incorrect calculation. It might be a non-professional calculation as to the amount he would be called upon to pay to discharge his part of the bargain he has elected to enter into.
The act at the moment is so rigid that even if it was found later by the actuaries in the superannuation branch that he had been misinformed and had undertaken to do more than he feels he should do, nevertheless he is unable to withdraw from that election. The result would be that he would come to the age of retirement and might not have paid the amount he elected to pay. There would probably then be some interval of time after the time of retirement, when he would draw nothing because his annuity would be assigned in payment of the debt in accordance with his original election.
There is no desire to relieve people unduly, or to allow them to withdraw from the superannuation scheme at a time when they are likely to need it. But there are instances of hardship such as I have described, and it is felt that the act is too rigid and that some discretion should be permitted.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The clause as it was contained a definite statement as to the rights of the elector. Then there is an addition which is put in general terms;
-except under such circumstances and upon such terms and conditions, including payment by the elector to Her Majesty of such amount in respect of any benefit accruing ... as the governor in council by regulation prescribes.
Does this mean there will be an attempt to make regulations covering a situation which is not covered by the clause as it stands? In other words does it mean there

Public Service Superannuation Act will be a known situation which any civil servant can discover, that steps will be taken to make regulations, and that it will not be a matter of their having to be taken up when applications are made?


William Moore Benidickson: No. There are broad regulations now known to everybody in the service, and these have stemmed from the basic act. There are a number of things the act itself says are to be governed by regulation. There is an order in council available to all, and the broad terms to describe what constitutes hardship will doubtless be made known in a regulation of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Woman deemed to be widow.
Jay Waldo Monteith: It seems to me that clauses 6 and 7 go together. Apparently there are certain persons who have been prohibited in the past from receiving benefits. This measure would change that in the future, it would seem, so far as persons in that situation are concerned. Will it affect those who have been refused the same consideration in the past?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. The essence of this is that, as in the veterans Pension Act, there is provision for paying a pension to what is described as a common law wife of a retired civil servant. Through inadvertence the act as now drawn provides that if those two people become free to marry after the person who was pensioned had retired, and do marry, she would be disentitled in respect of pension, although if they remained unmarried the pension would have continued in accordance with our regulations. It is to correct that situation. If otherwise entitled, marriage to the contributor after the time of retirement would not disentitle the woman.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is it retroactive to January 1, 1954?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. Then with respect to clause 7, this again is something that has come to light. If there was a second marriage after retirement the children of the first marriage born before retirement are cut off under the terms of the act as presently drafted. To correct that situation this amendment is required.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Persons re-employed.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the minister give a word of explanation?


William Moore Benidickson: Certain older contributors have periods of free pensionable service. This


is as a result of legislation which existed for the period 1924 to 1927, and also certain other privileges available up to 1939. It is possible that such a person might leave the service and then become re-employed in the public service. As the act now stands such a person would lose the free service that was available to him under this earlier legislation. The amendment is to correct that situation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Medical examination requirements.
Jay Waldo Monteith: This change indicates that an election to pay for any prior service is void unless medical examination is undergone. The old section reads that a contributor is not entitled to elect to pay for any prior service unless medical examination is undergone. I wonder what type of case woulcf arise to cause this change?


William Moore Benidickson: There is no change in the type of case that would demand prior medical examination before becoming a contributor under the scheme. But it is required, as the act is now worded, that medical examination take place within 30 days before the election.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is that according to the regulations?


William Moore Benidickson: No, it is in the act, and again it is found to be too restrictive. It is possible that under certain circumstances a reasonable period of time would be required after election in which to have the medical and within which the government may accept the election.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Election by unestablished Newfoundland civil servant.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This would seem to be a desirable clause, and I support it. I note its purpose is to bring under the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act those employees in Newfoundland who were known as unestablished civil servants.


William Moore Benidickson: Similar to our old temporaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant is trying to get ahead of me. I was going to suggest that this category would be similar to the old department of soldiers' civil re-establishment. They were unestablished. They were in a department that had not been recognized as a department of government. As l read the language of the section it seems to me that the cases are not dissimilar. My suggestion is the obvious one. If it is possible to do this for this group we should

be able to accord the privilege of transferring to part II of the Public Service Superannuation Act to that other group of employees.


William Moore Benidickson: I fail to see that analogy, and I repeat it is felt that as the functions that were formerly performed by the province of Newfoundland are now federal functions, and since we have made certain changes in the privileges of temporary employees who are similar to the unestablished civil servant designation formerly in effect in Newfoundland, we should permit those employees to have exactly the same advantage as they would have had if they had stayed on in the service of the government of Newfoundland and had become established civil servants in the province of Newfoundland. If they had become established, passing on from the grade of unestablished, they would have been entitled to elect for half of their previous years of service, and that is what is proposed here.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one point I am not quite sure of. I refer to paragraph (9) of section 10, which reads:
For the purposes of this act, the salary deemed to have been received by a contributor to whom subsection (8) applies, during any period of service described in that subsection, is a salary at the initial rate authorized to be paid to him upon ' becoming employed in the public service.
I do not quite understand it.


William Moore Benidickson: What is involved here, of course, is payment for prior service. The salary upon which the contributions will be paid will be the salary that employee became entitled to when he entered the service of Canada, having left the service of Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Service countable.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say just a few words with respect to clause 11. As I read it I confess it seems rather technical and involved, but I believe it is one of the clauses referred to by the parliamentary assistant as designed to iron out some of the difficulties where employees transfer from one service to another. In this case the relationship seems to be between service in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and service in some department of government covered by the Public Service Superannuation Act.
I welcome most heartily any and all of these moves that are made to increase what I sometimes call the mobility or the transferability of pension rights. I think it is one of the most important problems in the whole field of pensions in our country at the present time. A great many people are denied access 50433-142J
21, 1955	2239
Public Service Superannuation Act to certain employment because they are too old to qualify for pension rights in that field of employment. Others are frozen in their present employment because they cannot move elsewhere without losing such pension rights as they have built up to that point.
It does seem to me that we should move as rapidly as we can to the position' where people can move from public service to private service and from private service to public service, or from one field to another, and carry with them their pension rights and benefits. Of course that could be expedited to a certain extent by the Minister of Finance if we had a certain fiscal policy that would permit that sort of thing. But sooner or later it is going to call for more than that. It is going to call for some master plan under the sponsorship of the government if we are to have full mobility and transferability of pension rights. I can think of individuals who come to my mind, people in one type of employment who go to another and who suffer quite a loss in terms of pension rights, which really is not fair.
This is not a criticism of the clause that is before us, because if I understand it, the clause does iron out some little difficulties for a restricted group in this field.


William Moore Benidickson: Each of the amendments makes it a little easier to do that which my hon. friend advocates in a broader way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government should bring in a great many more amendments of this kind until we have in Canada complete transferability of pension rights.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Regulations.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Will the parliamentary
assistant tell us whether, under paragraph (d), there are many instances of this kind, and under paragraph (ga), what type of case is contemplated?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, it has been found that as the act is now drafted there can be no regulation by order in council with respect to leave of absence that occurred prior to the time the present act came into force. We can regulate in the present tense, as it were, and deal currently with leave of absence, but it has been found on checking the personnel records that some employees had charged to them some absence, although they were on leave, for which they did not elect previously to contribute and now desire to do so. We have been informed by the Department of Justice that we cannot by regulation or otherwise deal with them under the terms of the present act.

Public Service Superannuation Act
With respect to clause 12, this of course has reference to the revoking of elections owing to hardship, and clause 5, of course, is the main clause with respect to this matter.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Take the young man who has been ill, is on leave of absence and keeps his payments up. Will he be all right?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13-Extension of time fixed for making elections in certain cases.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Apparently this is one of the main clauses in the bill as far as the parliamentary assistant is concerned. In moving the resolution he mentioned that there are some 60,000 additional contributors. How many have been processed up to December 31, 1954?


William Moore Benidickson: I understand roughly half. I also understand it is not proposed that this right of election be held over beyond the end of the year.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Am I right in supposing that this can be renewed one year at a time? If the making of an election takes place on December 31, 1957, does that mean the time can actually be extended to December 31, 1958?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, but we are hoping that all accounts can be processed and elections offered or refused within the year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise one question which I suggest is of some importance. I shall read the clause:
The governor in council may make regulations providing for the extension, under such circumstances and upon such terms and conditions as are specified in those regulations, but in no case for a period of more than one year, . . .
[DOT]-and so on. Why is the one-year limit necessary? It is not a role I like, to suggest that the government should take more power; but is it really necessary to make an arbitrary cut-off of that kind, where you might find some case that is absolutely compelling on its merits but it comes in a day late? Is it really necessary to make that cut-off? If it has to be made, while a year seems a long time in one way, in another way it may be a very short time, and I do suggest most earnestly that unless it has been seriously considered and the objections to it are quite overwhelming, the parliamentary assistant should have another look at it.	,


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend will
remember that in other sections of the act there are provisions for late election upon paying an interest penalty. I think most of the cases the hon. member has in mind would

be covered by that provision. The hon. member will realize that the longer you leave the door open the greater is the procrastination.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will admit what the
parliamentary assistant has said, but it seems to me that he has gone part of the way when he says that in certain cases the door is left partly open, with a penalty. It was exactly something of that kind that I was going to suggest, that there be a penalty but that the door be not banged, barred and bolted.


William Moore Benidickson: It is not so simple. Under those circumstances interest 'would be payable after the expiry of a year's opportunity for election.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the parliamentary
assistant saying now that there is really no final cut-off but that by the payment of penalties, etc., there is still a way of escape, that one can come in through the side door? If the parliamentary assistant is saying that, then I have nothing more to say.


William Moore Benidickson: One requirement would be that he continues to be in the service; another would be that after a year had elapsed he would be required to submit to a medical if he wanted to elect for prior service.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall not press the matter further now, except to ask the parliamentary assistant to satisfy himself absolutely before third reading that that is the situation. Incidentally, I suggest that if it is, then these words should go out because if the situation is as indicated then I submit that on the face of it there is a contradiction in the bill. Without spending more time on it, I ask the parliamentary assistant to have a look at it and make a statement on third reading.


William Moore Benidickson: I will. Of course I do not think there is a contradiction, because within a period of a year there is no penalty.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am quite ready to be shown that I am wrong.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.

James Sinclair: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement the convention on great lakes fisheries between Canada and the United States, signed at Washington on the 10th of September, 1954, and

to provide that the governor in council may make regulations lor carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the convention and anything done by the great lakes fisheries commission to be established thereunder.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, this is one more of a series of international treaties respecting' our great fisheries. The previous treaties have been extremely successful, and we are hoping that this one will be equally so. As most hon. members know, Canada has been blessed with great fisheries both in our coastal waters and in our inland waters. Over the last 50 years we have done a pretty good job of conserving these fisheries in our own waters. I think the best proof of that is the fact that in recent years our fisheries have* been generally increasing in total size of catch, whereas many other nations have experienced declining catches.
However, we have no control over fishing activities beyond our territorial waters when that fishing is conducted by the nationals of other nations. It is an important problem for all the fishing nations of the world, because there is not much sense in having good conservation of your own fisheries if other nationals can come right up to your boundaries and exploit those stocks. Some nations of the world have recently tried to solve this problem by arbitrarily pushing out their territorial waters 10, 12, 50 or even 200 miles in an endeavour to conserve these fisheries for the sole use of their own nationals. This of course has brought immediate protests and reprisals and court actions from the nations whose fishermen have been displaced by this action. Our nation has tried a different approach to fisheries conservation on the high seas, and I think the record shows that this approach is the more successful one.
It was first tried in 1923 in the north Pacific by the United States and ourselves. The greatest halibut fishery in the world is off the Queen Charlotte islands. Ruthless fishing by the fleets of both nations had brought this great fishery to a point where it looked as though it would soon be extinct. In 1923 these two nations got together and agreed to international conservation and control, each country controlling the activities of its own nationals in those high seas waters. Here again the best proof of how successful this form of conservation has been is the record. In 1923 these fisheries were at their all-time low; last year we caught 71 million pounds of halibut, the greatest catch in all our history, in just two months of fishing. The other
Great Lakes Fisheries
pleasing thing about this is the change in Canada's share. In 1923 we got only 17 per cent of the catch; last year we got 40 per cent.
That example was followed in our second international treaty, to conserve the sockeye salmon on the west coast. Here again was a valuable fishery which was diminishing each year, and here again the record shows how successful this method of international conservation has been. Last year salmon fishing on the Fraser had the greatest catch since 1913. Almost 12 million fish went into the Adams river, just one of the branches of the Fraser, and the total catch came close to $40 million.
We also have the north Pacific fur seal convention with the United States, which has been almost too successful. Pelagic sealing for these fur seals had reduced them to about 150,000. The United States and ourselves agreed to a policy of strict control and conservation, and as a result we now have between 2 and 3 million of these animals, from which the government of Canada nets a clear profit of about $1 million a year. There are now so many seals in these waters that the United States fishermen and our own fishermen are complaining that the seals are getting more fish than they are. This fall we intend to have a meeting to study our scientists' reports and see whether or not this herd should now be reduced.
After the war, in 1946, the 17 nations of the world who follow whaling were very concerned with the great decline in the stock of whales in many of the oceans of the world. They got together and formed the international whaling commission, along pretty much the same lines as our first halibut commission. The hon. member for Kamloops recently, in an effort to bolster up a very weak speech on veterans affairs, went far enough afield to attack the whaling commission and suggested that it was not of much importance. We have good whaling stocks in the north Pacific, the Beaufort sea, Hudson bay and the coast of Newfoundland.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if there are any whales in the great lakes?


James Sinclair: If the hon. member, who is not a fisheries member, was listening he would know that I was trying to indicate to the committee why we are so keen about this type of international conservation. It has proved very successful in the past in these fisheries I have mentioned. I think most hon. members will admit that it is a pretty logical approach to the problem, to show that we have good reason to enter into these new international fisheries agreements
2242	HOUSE OF
Great Lakes Fisheries
on the great lakes, because our other international fisheries agreements have been so successful.
Because of the successful record of these international conservation treaties on the west coast, the ten nations that fish the northwest Atlantic got together in 1951 in a similar treaty to conserve another great fishery, the Grand Banks, which despite 400 years of fishing are still the greatest fisheries in the world. In 1953 Japan, the United States and ourselves got together under still another similar treaty to conserve the great fisheries of the north Pacific, all because Canada and the United States have proved this is an intelligent and effective way to conserve our fisheries.
Now comes one more in this series of what have been such extremely successful efforts in international co-operation, this treaty to conserve fisheries on the great lakes. The fisheries on the great lakes amount to about 40 million pounds of fish a year. That may not seem to be much as compared with our total catch of about 2,000 million pounds. Nevertheless it is extremely important to our fishermen, for two reasons.
First, there is the actual value of the catch to the fishermen of the great lakes, which is somewhere between $7 and $10 million a year. Second, there is the nature of the fisheries themselves. Most of the fisheries of the world are a long way from the market, and great expense is incurred in transporting fish from where they are caught to where they are consumed. Halibut from the Queen Charlotte islands, for example, is transported almost 3,000 miles to eastern Canada or the eastern states, and lake trout from Great Slave lake 2,000 miles to Chicago and Toronto.
Here on the great lakes we have these fisheries right in the centre of the greatest concentration of population on the North American continent, a fact which makes them extremely valuable fisheries. Within recent years, however, there has been a steady decline, not so much in the volume of catch but in the value of the catch in the great lakes.
The most valuable fish commercially are the lake trout and the whitefish. There is no question that the parasite, the sea lamprey, has wreaked great havoc on the lake trout and the whitefish. Another reason is that perhaps overfishing for those valuable species has put the fishery out of balance and resulted in greater populations of the cheaper fish. Those two factors show the need for intelligent international conservation and control. It must be international because, as with the high seas, there is not much point in our


having an effective program of conservation and regulation of fishing on our side of the great lakes if there is not a similar program on the other side. Fish are no respecters of the international boundary down the centre of the great lakes and move freely back and forth.
For some years we have been trying to achieve this treaty. We have had difficulties, not through any lack of interest on the part of the United States government-because they are as much aware as we are of the success of our joint treaties on the Pacific coast and the need for a similar treaty on the great lakes-but rather because of the problem of jurisdiction. Here in Canada, of course, fisheries are the responsibility of the federal government. In the United States, however, the primary control rests with the states. There are eight states fringing the great lakes, some of them such as Ohio with very good fisheries and others with a short coast line with insignificant fisheries. It was apparently difficult to persuade all of them to surrender the necessary authority to the federal government. However, the United States government has now achieved this objective, and was able to negotiate on behalf of the states.
I am happy to report that we have ho such difficulties on this side of the border. We have had the closest co-operation from the province of Ontario. Even before this treaty was signed we had embarked with them on a joint program of research and had launched a program by ourselves of lamprey control. Last year in the estimates we had an amount of $15,000 to match $15,000 Ontario put up for research, and $150,000 for lamprey control. Now we have this new treaty to carry out international conservation on the great lakes.
Perhaps I should read the objectives which were set out. The convention provides for the establishment of a commission composed of two national sections of three members each, appointed by the contracting governments. This is the same pattern as that of the other international treaties. The principal duties of the commission are as follows:
(1)	To formulate a research program with a view of determining the need for conservation measures in respect of any stock of fish of common concern to the fisheries of Canada and the United States;
(2)	to co-ordinate research and to undertake any research by the commission where necessary;
(3)	to recommend appropriate measures to the contracting governments based on such research;

(4)	to formulate and implement a comprehensive program for the purpose of eradicating or minimizing the sea lamprey menace.
The commission has no power to make regulations. In that respect it is the same as most of the other international commissions. It has only authority to recommend any necessary measure, leaving the regulating of fishing activities to the respective governments. In other words, each of us passes the regulations recommended to control our own nationals.
The joint expenses of the commission are to be apportioned between Canada and the United States in the manner agreed to between the two governments after recommendation by the commission. The expenses of each national section are to be paid by the respective governments.
The convention covers all the great lakes and their connecting waters, and will come into force on the date of exchange of ratifications and remain in force for ten years. It may remain in effect thereafter until terminated by notice by either country.
When the bill is before the house for second reading I shall then propose to refer it to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, so that hon. members may have an opportunity to question our officials on the actual program they contemplate.
In closing I may say that with the ratification of this international commission on the great lakes we shall have only one major fishery of Canada left unprotected by such an international commission. I refer to the pink salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. For some time we have been negotiating to arrange a similar treaty with the Americans on this fishery, and I think after the fishing program we have planned for this summer we shall be able to achieve that objective during the fall.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, usually we have some complaint because ministers do not give sufficiently long statements on the introduction of a resolution. I am sure that tonight we cannot make that complaint. The minister has just given us a full statement with respect to the background of this commission and the history of those which have preceded it. As he said, the matter of the great lakes fishery is of great importance not only to the people of Ontario but to Canadians generally. We are happy to know that this resolution is to be referred to the committee, or that at least the minister will suggest or recommend that it be referred to the committee where we can give it careful study.
As I think the minister has pointed out, the question of jurisdiction has interfered with the proper enforcement of conservation or
Great Lakes Fisheries protective measures in the past. We cannot have eight states on one side of the line and one province on the other side of the line, with one set of provisions on the United States side and one set on this side, without having a great deal of perhaps not misunderstanding or conflict but certainly lack of co-operation. Following the passage of this legislation we shall have dealings between the two central governments; we shall have increased moneys for research, and apparently we shall have a really definite effort made to meet the menace of the lamprey eel which is threatening the existence of a valuable part of the fisheries on the great lakes.
It does not matter so much to the fishermen that their tonnage remains the same if at the same time they are catching more of the cheaper fish and fewer of the more valuable fish. That is the situation which has prevailed during the past few years. We are therefore glad this resolution is finally before the house. We hope the bill will be referred to the committee in the very near future, where it may receive further consideration and then be brought into effect as soon as possible.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask the minister a question. I was naturally interested in his statement. The minister did not make clear to me just how the restriction of the catch of fish was made effective. He stated that there was an effective restriction of the catch particularly on the Pacific coast. I wonder whether he would say a word more with regard to the method to be used in exercising the necessary restrictions.


James Sinclair: The pattern of all these commissions is that they recommend to the governments concerned what they regard to be the best regulations with regard to the time of fishing, the sort of gear which should be used for fishing so it will catch mature fish and let immature fish escape, and even quotas for the amount of fish which should be caught in any season. The commissions as such are clothed with no authority to enforce those regulations. They refer their recommendations back to the contracting governments. Our Department of Fisheries then enforces those regulations on our nationals fishing in Canadian waters and on the high seas. We have the power under the Fisheries Act to enforce them on our nationals. Across on the United States side the United States authorities will enforce the same regulations on United States nationals, so we shall both be observing the same fishing season, using the same fishing gear, and with the same sort of quotas on amounts.
2244	HOUSE OF
Great Lakes Fisheries


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say that I welcome the background the minister gave in introducing this resolution. I think it would be fair to say that it would be hard to find, among those who have any knowledge at all of the manner in which this international co-operation in the field of fisheries has developed in British Columbia, anyone who would do other than welcome an extension of the principles that have been followed on the Pacific coast where, as the minister indicated, there has been experienced over a number of years the benefits to be derived from that approach to the problem of conserving and extending our fishing resources. I shall await with interest the further study and discussion when the bill is brought before us on second reading.
There is one question I should like to raise upon which the minister might like to comment. He listed the various fisheries treaties and conventions and the commissions that have been established to administer them, particularly those involving ourselves and the United States of America. There are now quite a number of them, and I wonder whether the minister would care to give us his views as to the advantage or otherwise of having an increasing number of separate fisheries commissions. There are the halibut commission, the fur seal commission and the sockeye commission on the western coast, and the possibility has been suggested of one having to do with pink salmon.
I am wondering whether we are going to have so many different fisheries commissions that we will lose track of them, and whether there may not develop in the course of time, as a result of the number of such bodies, a certain overlapping of work and effort. Would there not perhaps be some advantages in establishing a joint fisheries commission between Canada and the United States to exercise general administrative powers over the whole problem of fisheries conservation and development of the various fisheries? I should like to hear any comment the minister may care to offer on that aspect of the matter.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, that would probably be a desirable goal in the end, but since we have had a fair amount of difficulty even negotiating the treaties on these major species I think we would have to have a lot more experience and a lot more acceptance before we could negotiate one treaty to cover all fisheries of concern to the two nations. On the Pacific the halibut and salmon fisheries are of course our major fisheries. In the end the new north Pacific treaty could probably embrace them as regional operations under the one treaty, but I do not think the


fishermen of either our coast or the United States coast would be prepared yet to give up these commissions which have worked so well, to come under the jurisdiction of the commissioners under this new treaty, which has still to prove itself successful. They have yet to establish themselves the way the salmon and the halibut treaties have.
I think that is true of this great lakes treaty. A great step forward will be taken if the great lakes treaty is as effective as the treaties on the west coast, because this is the first treaty to include all species of fish in this area. On the west coast we have control over only two different species under two separate commissions, but this great lakes treaty in this way is a step forward, because it is going to exercise control over all species of fish in these waters.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, I believe this measure will meet with wide approval among the men on the great lakes who, by their skill and knowledge, endeavour to make their livelihood in the fishing industry. The fishing industry, especially along the north shore of lake Erie, has its place in the economy of our country. The 1954 estimated total catch of fish for the province of Ontario amounts to some 47 million pounds. Of this total nearly two-thirds, or 30 million pounds, were caught in the waters of lake Erie. This does not mean that lake Erie fishermen are becoming wealthy in the fishing industry; far from it. Statistics show that the average income of a fisherman is less than $2,000 a year.
The problems of the great lakes fishermen are somewhat different from those of the hardy fishermen who carry on their operations mainly on our coastal waters. The spring fishing season on lake Erie opens on March 1, but very often on this date fishermen find their boats still frozen in the harbours and there is a period of several weeks when they must combat the drifting ice floes which very often do serious damage to their nets.
To bear this out, I have a clipping here from the Aylmer Express of March 17, stating that commercial fishermen from the fishing village of Port Bruce were delayed by the recent cold snap which left a layer of ice some six inches deep on the water surface. The two fishermen who have been operating out of the village for nearly three weeks so far have not brought in a single fish this season. The article goes on to say that considerable heavy ice is still visible for some distance offshore but the harbour mouth and shoreline water are perfectly clear. This will indicate to some extent one of the problems which

these fishermen have in the spring, when the price of fish is usually much higher than it is later on in the season.
In recent years the catch of fish on some of the great lakes has seriously fallen off, to a point where many species of fish are rapidly being depleted. One factor that has entered into the depletion of fish, as the minister mentioned, is the sea lamprey, more commonly known by local fishermen in my constituency as the lamprey eel. The cycle of this parasite was that it spent its early life in fresh water, migrated to the ocean where it grew to maturity, and then returned to fresh water to spawn. It was during its life in the ocean that it became a parasite on fish. Since the early twenties the cycle of this parasite has changed, and now we find the lamprey spending the entire cycle of its life in fresh water.
The first large spawning population of sea lamprey was discovered in 1932 in a tributary of lake Erie. From this area it migrated to lake Huron, where it found the shoals advantageous to spawning. In lake Huron it found the lake trout to its liking to feed upon to such an extent that today the catch of lake trout in lake Huron is practically exhausted. During the parasite phase of its life the lamprey feeds on the blood and body juices of fish. It attaches itself to its victim by means of its sucker-like mouth, and with its sharp teeth soon rasps a hole in the body of the fish. Experiments have proven that a lamprey will remain attached to the body of the fish for as long as three weeks, provided the fish does not die. The more delicate species of fish die very quickly, but the hardy species may survive one attachment or more. The attack of the lamprey has not been limited only to lake trout but has involved many other species of fish, especially white-fish.
In reviewing figures released by the Ontario department of lands and forests we find that the estimated Ontario catch of fish in all the great lakes has increased slightly in 1954 to a total of 34,513,000 pounds, an increase of 7-2 per cent over the 1953 preliminary estimate of 32,209,000 pounds. Then let us take a look at the figures for lake Huron and Georgian bay. We find that commercial landings in Georgian bay show a decrease of 38 per cent, from 4,682,000 pounds in 1953 to 2,897,000 pounds in 1954, due to a drop of 41-5 per cent in the catch of white-fish, the principal species sought. Other decreases were noted in northern inland waters where 4,300,000 pounds were taken, 10 per cent under the 1953 figure. For lake Ontario the figure was 1,212,000 pounds, down 10 per cent; for lake Huron it was 1,031,000
Great Lakes Fisheries pounds, down 8 per cent; for north channel it was 253,000 pounds, down 17 per cent, and for southern inland waters the figure was
442.000	pounds, down 19 per cent.
To show further the decrease in the catch of lake trout, especially in lake Huron, I wish to use figures from the United States department of the interior, fish and wildlife services, contained in a bulletin published in October, 1950, entitled "The Sea Lamprey in the Great Lakes". They express grave fear that this parasite may completely destroy fishing for this species.
The speed and completeness with which the lake trout fishery has collapsed in lake Huron is demonstrated by the following record of the catch in United States waters from 1935 through 1948. I do not intend to quote in full the figures for the period from 1935 to 1948, but will take a five-year period commencing with 1935. In 1935 the catch was 1,743,000 pounds, and five years later it was down to
940.000	pounds. The catch continued to decrease and by 1945 was down to 172,000 pounds. The last figures available to me were for 1948, when the catch was only 4,000 pounds. A tentative figure for 1949 was set at only 912 pounds. This production figure has set a new low record for any year since 1939. These figures illustrate, Mr. Speaker, the destruction that has taken place in one of our great lakes as a result, in a great measure, of the attack of the sea lamprey on the great lakes fish.
Another problem which confronts the fishing industry, especially in lake Erie, is the natural mortality of the fish. In some species natural mortality follows spawning, but many people are of the opinion that a fish continues to grow larger as the years go by. This is not the case. A fish has a life span just as any other animal has.
I have already mentioned the problem of parasites, in addition to which there is the problem of disease, and this is also a matter of international concern. Another cause for the depletion of the fish is the high temperature of the water in the summer, added to which we have the old difficulty of the pollution of international rivers and streams. Pollution has become quite a problem in recent years, especially in those waters bordering southwestern Ontario and along lake Ontario. No doubt this problem of pollution will increase as industry continues to grow in this greatly expanding area bordering along the great lakes in this part of Ontario.
When implemented this resolution should meet with the approval of all fishermen on the inland lakes. We hope it will enable Canada and the United States to jointly carry on research work, not only in an
2246	HOUSE OF
Great Lakes Fisheries
endeavour to eradicate the sea lamprey but also with the aim of restocking our lakes. I know there are many other problems which confront our fishermen on these inland lakes, but we do hope this convention that will establish the great lakes fisheries commission will prove of great benefit to all those fishermen who make their living in these waters.


Mr. Thomas:: Like other hon. members who have spoken on this resolution I welcome the introduction of this convention, and feel sure it is going to be as successful as other fishing conventions that have been drawn up between Canada and the United States. I believe the fishermen on the great lakes will be very pleased with this convention, because it does bring about the equalization of fishing opportunities as between the fishermen of the two countries. I feel, too, that the minister should be congratulated on the success he has achieved in helping to bring about this convention. We know it is quite difficult to get, I think he said eight states and the federal government of the United States, together on the matter of giving the federal government the power to enter into such a convention.
I am sure it will help the fishermen on the great lakes. I was interested in the remarks of the previous speaker concerning the sea lamprey or lamprey eel. At some time, probably not now but when the estimates of the fisheries department are before us, perhaps the minister will give us a more detailed explanation of how the department proposes to deal with these sea lamprey, and the means suggested for getting rid of this parasite.


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: Before this resolution carries, as the member for one of the fishing constituencies of Nova Scotia may I say that I feel this convention is further evidence of the direction and wise guidance that is being given by the present minister and his department. I know those of us on the east coast are pleased with the improvement that has taken place in the last few years. Evidence of that was supplied this afternoon, when I asked the minister about the participation of the United States authorities in the haddock survey. I felt that was further evidence of the co-operation between the two countries who are fishing in waters adjacent to one another.
I realize there are further problems that are going to be brought before his department, in fact some of them are now before it. These problems must be solved before too long. I am thinking of the three-mile and twelve-mile limit, and the protection that must be given our inshore fishermen from
[Mr. McBaln.l

foreign draggers. I feel the success we have had with these other conventions, and will have with this convention, indicates that we can look forward in the near future to some solution of these problems which mean so much to us on the east coast, and especially the inshore fishermen. May I again congratulate the minister and wish him success with this convention.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Sinclair thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 279, to implement a convention on great lakes fisheries between Canada and the United States.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


RAILWAY ACT
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 259, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. At the resolution stage I outlined the recommendations of the board of transport commissioners as contained in the grade crossing report, and indicated the main lines of the legislation which the government proposed to introduce. Hon. members have now had an opportunity to study the actual wording in the bill and the explanatory notes. Perhaps it would be helpful, however, if I were to compare the present provisions of the act with the proposed amendments.
1.	At present the fund may be applied only in respect of actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at existing crossings at rail level. It cannot be applied toward the cost of repairing or improving existing subways, bridges or other grade separations. The proposed legislation would make the fund available to aid the reconstruction and improvement of grade separations which are obsolete for highway traffic using them, the construction in any one case not to exceed 30 per cent of the cost nor $150,000 per project.
2.	Under existing legislation no contribution from the fund may be made toward newly opened crossing protection unless existing crossings are closed. The proposed legislation would empower the board to make contributions where it sees fit toward the cost of grade separations in any location, provided that existing crossings are closed or nearly all the highway traffic using existing crossings is to be diverted to the new crossing.

3.	At present the fund cannot be applied to the protection of crossings constructed after April 1, 1909, unless an approved agreement has been concluded between the railway and other parties bearing a portion of the cost of the work. The proposed legislation eliminates this provision, except that the crossing must have been in existence for at least three years prior to the board's order authorizing a grant from the fund.
4.	Whereas the maximum grant for any one crossing is now 40 per cent of the cost with a maximum of $150,000 per project, it is proposed that the maximum grant be increased to 60 per cent of the cost with a maximum of $300,000 per project.
5.	Whereas the present appropriation to the fund is $1 million annually, it is proposed that the annual appropriation be $5 million, with a proviso that where on April 1 in any year there is an uncommitted balance of more than $2 million in the fund the appropriation for that year would be such amount as with the uncommitted balance would total $7 million.
6.	The present legislation provides that where a railway is constructed across a highway after May, 1909, the railway shall bear the whole cost of protection unless an approved agreement has been concluded between the railway and other parties bearing a portion of the cost of the work. This section would be repealed.
Perhaps I should add that after second reading of the bill it would be my intention to move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, I was about to suggest what the minister has just said, that this matter should be referred to the committee. I do not see any great objection to what has been outlined this evening by the Minister of Transport. However, there were some features he touched upon which I believe are worthy of consideration. He pointed out that the board did not consider any grade crossing application unless the application was made by the other contracting parties, the provinces, the municipalities and the railways.
After examining the minister's remarks I am not satisfied as to the board's intention in connection with the administration of the act. I would like to have some further information, but as the hour is getting late perhaps I should not speak at greater length now. However, if it is the wish of hon. members I am prepared to continue for a while longer.
Railway Act
On Friday evening the minister intimated that there was some misapprehension as to the purpose for which the fund was created, and I was not quite clear as to his meaning when he made that statement. There has been a change made in the ratio of payments to be made on grade crossing projects. The share of the municipalities is set at 25 per cent, which is a 5 per cent reduction. However, the railway companies have received a much better break, no doubt owing to the fact that they cannot meet the necessary obligations in connection with grade crossing projects. Notwithstanding the improvement made in the ratio of contributions, I do not think this fund will accomplish what the people of Canada have in mind. I believe the board must adjust its thinking to the requirements of the people in the matter of level crossings.
In my view this is not a matter simply of spending money, but rather one of reducing the hazard; and I do not believe the thinking by the board is adjusted to that fact. The object they seem to have in mind is that of saving money. As a result the railways are not interested in removing hazards at grade crossings because the expense is so great.
Therefore in municipalities, where the cost of separating grade crossings is too great for them to bear, I believe the initiative should come from the grade crossing fund. The municipalities will not make application for those crossings because of a lack of funds. When this matter comes before the railway committee it should be considered thoroughly, and we should have before us some members of the board of transport commissioners who would be prepared to give us more information on the subject than we have at the moment. I cannot conceive of the board not having information as to how many applications have been made for railway grade crossings from one end of Canada to the other. I am sure there are plenty of applications taken at the initiative of the railways and the municipalities, and the board should be prepared to supply that information.
I believe I would not be far wrong if I were to say that there are before the board at the present time more applications than they can look after, even with the $5 million now recommended. The consensus in the house on all sides, irrespective of party, is that there is not enough money in the fund. The board has taken the attitude of seeing how tight they can hold the purse strings, with the result that no grade crossing application is considered until such time as there have been so many accidents that the situation has become serious in the public mind.

Business of the House
The suggestion that we discuss this matter in the railway committee is a good one, but I still say the minister should give careful consideration to placing enough money m the fund to take care of the requirements.
I would ask to call it ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Small the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will take all third readings available, and then resume the adjourned debate on the motion to go into supply.
Then I believe I should say at this time that it is the intention to move on Thursday in such a manner that we may have the external affairs debate. I should, however, point out that the motion we have been using, namely one to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the standing committee on external affairs, is not debatable; and it will have to be understood that it is by unanimous consent that we are having the debate in this manner.
I think I also ought to ask opposition members for their co-operation in dealing with supplementary estimates on Friday, and also a motion for interim supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 22, 1955